outdoor adventure education in schools: curriculum...
TRANSCRIPT
OUTDOOR ADVENTURE EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS:
CURRICULUM OR PEDAGOGY? CONSIDERATIONS FOR TEACHER PREPARATION
AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
by
Michael Bowdridge
B.Ed., Acadia University, 2000 M.Sc., University of British Columbia, 1998
B.Sc.(Hons), Dalhousie University, 1994
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Faculty
of Education
Curriculum Theory and Implementation Program
© Mike Bowdridge 2010
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Summer 2010
All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for Fair Dealing. Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately.
Approval
Name: Michael Bowdridge
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy
Title of Thesis: Outdoor Adventure Education in Schools: Curriculum or Pedagogy? Considerations for Teacher Preparation and Program Implementation
Examining Committee:
Dr. Kieran Egan Chair
Dr. Sean Blenkinsop Senior Supervisor Assistant Professor
Dr. Allan MacKinnon Committee Member Associate Professor
Dr. David Zanvliet Internal Examiner Associate Professor
Dr. Brent Bell External Examiner University of New Hampshire
Date Defended/Approved: August 5th, 2010
ii
Last revision: Spring 09
Declaration of Partial Copyright Licence The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection (currently available to the public at the “Institutional Repository” link of the SFU Library website <www.lib.sfu.ca> at: <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/112>) and, without changing the content, to translate the thesis/project or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work.
The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without the author’s written permission.
Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by the author. This information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the signed Partial Copyright Licence.
While licensing SFU to permit the above uses, the author retains copyright in the thesis, project or extended essays, including the right to change the work for subsequent purposes, including editing and publishing the work in whole or in part, and licensing other parties, as the author may desire.
The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive.
Simon Fraser University Library Burnaby, BC, Canada
STATEMENT OF ETHICS APPROVAL
The author, whose name appears on the title page of this work, has obtained, for the research described in this work, either:
(a) Human research ethics approval from the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics,
or
(b) Advance approval of the animal care protocol from the University Animal Care Committee of Simon Fraser University;
or has conducted the research
(c) as a co-investigator, collaborator or research assistant in a research project approved in advance,
or
(d) as a member of a course approved in advance for minimal risk human research, by the Office of Research Ethics.
A copy of the approval letter has been filed at the Theses Office of the University Library at the time of submission of this thesis or project.
The original application for approval and letter of approval are filed with the relevant offices. Inquiries may be directed to those authorities.
Simon Fraser University Library
Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada
Last update: Spring 2010
Abstract
Although outdoor education has a rich history of providing key transformative
moments and personal growth for students, its incorporation into public school education
has been weak at best. With such an established role of providing effective learning
environments, this naturally raises the question: What has prevented the greater inclusion
of outdoor education in our public school system? This research addresses this question
by demonstrating that the role of outdoor education in public schools can be framed as
either pedagogy or curriculum. The relationship between pedagogy and curriculum is
revealed to create difficulties for outdoor education’s incorporation into schools because
the public education system has the ability to use it selectively in a piecemeal fashion.
This research demonstrates that the current lack of articulation of this duality has enabled
those opposed to its inclusion in schools to create false arguments against its use, while
those in favor of incorporation face challenges by not understanding outdoor education in
this way. The importance of framing outdoor education’s role for schools in this manner
is shown to affect two areas: developing integrated school programs and its incorporation
into teacher training programs. In order to adequately explore the above problem this
dissertation divides and separately considers three frames of reference for outdoor
education programming relative to schools: supplementary, curricula-based, and
integrated. Curricula-based outdoor programs are shown to emphasize outdoor education
as curriculum for schools (as a body of knowledge), while integrated outdoor programs
largely focus on outdoor education as pedagogy (as experiential education). Primary
research investigated Canadian integrated outdoor programs through surveys of veteran
outdoor education teachers operating such programs in our schools. This research
iii
identified two key roles for outdoor program inclusion: an experiential learning
framework, and personal life skills development. By redefining the roles of outdoor
education in schools in this way we now understand that previous reference to education
about the natural heritage refers to curriculum initiatives while education through the
natural heritage refers to pedagogical aims. In addition, the roles of the institution and the
educator are examined in relation to the compatibility of outdoor education in public
schools.
Keywords: outdoor education, experiential education, integrated curriculum, outdoor
education in schools, outdoor pedagogy, adventure education, teacher training
iv
Dedication
To my parents,
For raising me.
To my wife,
For supporting me.
To my son,
For motivating me.
v
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Sean Blenkinsop, for his
guidance, encouragement, and patience during my course of study. I would like to
particularly thank him for his editing and input on the writing of this thesis, and for the
co-authoring of our journal paper.
I would like to thank Dr. Pete Higgins, from the University of Edinburgh, for his reading
of my thesis, informative conversations, and his important and supportive feedback of my
work prior to defense.
I would like to thank my course professors, fellow graduate students, and the education
faculty for providing such a stimulating intellectual environment that afforded me with
such a scope of appreciation for what we teachers do in the classroom everyday.
I would also like to thank my wife, Jennet, for her grammatical proofreading of my thesis
and her unwavering support.
vi
Table of Contents
Approval ............................................................................................................................ ii
Abstract............................................................................................................................. iii
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... vi
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ vii
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 – Experiential Education.............................................................................. 13
1.1 Early Foundations for Experiential Education........................................................ 13
1.2 The Influence of John Dewey................................................................................. 19
1.3 The Interplay between Action and Reflection ........................................................ 23
1.3.1 Learning Cycles ............................................................................................... 23
1.3.2 David Kolb and Experiential Learning............................................................ 25
1.3.3 Donald Schön and the Reflective Practitioner ................................................. 29
1.4 Experiential Re-Framing of Education ................................................................... 35
1.4.1 Freire and Praxis .............................................................................................. 36
1.4.2 Shor and Thematic Teaching ........................................................................... 39
1.4.3 The Synergy between Action and Reflection .................................................. 40
1.5 The Role of the Teacher in Experiential Education................................................ 42
1.6 Application of Experiential Education.................................................................... 47
Chapter 2 – Outdoor Education .................................................................................... 51
2.1 The Scope of Outdoor Education............................................................................ 51
2.2 Early Foundations of Outdoor Education ............................................................... 55
2.2.1 The Moral Equivalent to War .......................................................................... 55
2.2.2 Kurt Hahn and the creation of Outward Bound............................................... 57
2.2.3 The Growth of Outdoor Education Programs.................................................. 59
2.3 The Relation between Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education ................... 62
2.4 Critical Elements for Outdoor Education ............................................................... 64
2.4.1 The Socially and Physically Unfamiliar Environment .................................... 64
2.4.2 Flow State ........................................................................................................ 68
vii
2.4.3 Perceived Versus Actual Risk.......................................................................... 72
2.5 Ethics in Outdoor Education................................................................................... 74
2.5.1 Informed Consent............................................................................................. 75
2.6 Integration of Outdoor Education Experiences into General Society..................... 77
2.6.1 Dressing the Metaphor..................................................................................... 79
2.6.2 Rites of Passage ............................................................................................... 81
Chapter 3 – Contextualizing Outdoor Education Programming ............................... 85
3.1 Structural Relations between Outdoor Education and Public Schooling................ 85
3.2 Foucault – Discipline and Power ............................................................................ 87
3.2.1 The Docile Body.............................................................................................. 88
3.2.2 Means of Correct Training............................................................................... 91
Hierarchical Observation ...................................................................................... 92
Normalizing Judgments ........................................................................................ 94
The Examination................................................................................................... 96
3.2.3 Institutional Frameworks and the Panopticon.................................................. 99
3.2.4 Foucault and Outdoor Education ................................................................... 103
3.3 Schön – The Reflective Practitioner ..................................................................... 108
3.3.1 Artistry and Learning Loops.......................................................................... 109
3.3.2 Modeling Group Dynamics............................................................................ 112
Model I................................................................................................................ 112
Model II .............................................................................................................. 116
3.3.3 Frames of Reference ...................................................................................... 120
3.3.4 The Interplay Between Student and Instructor .............................................. 122
3.4 Implications for Outdoor Education in Public Schooling..................................... 125
Chapter 4 – Outdoor Education as Praxis for Schools.............................................. 129
4.1 Potential Interplay of Outdoor Education in the Classroom................................. 129
4.1.1 Opposition to Integration ............................................................................... 133
4.1.2 Schooling Roles in Society ............................................................................ 137
4.2 Barriers to Integration ........................................................................................... 141
4.2.1 Assessment Dynamics ................................................................................... 142
4.2.2 The Political Landscape................................................................................. 147
viii
4.2.3 Certification versus Qualification .................................................................. 149
4.2.4 Teacher Preparation and Training.................................................................. 155
4.3 Educational Frameworks for Modeling Outdoor Education in Schools............... 161
Chapter 5 – Curricula-Based Programming: Outdoor Education as Curriculum 166
5.1 Outdoor Education Curricula for Schools............................................................. 166
5.2 Australian and New Zealand Initiatives................................................................ 167
5.3 Outdoor Education as Curriculum ........................................................................ 172
5.3.1 Shifts in Outdoor Education Curriculum ....................................................... 174
5.3.2 An Outdoor Education Body of Knowledge.................................................. 178
5.4 Logistical Barriers................................................................................................. 181
5.5 Subject or Method? ............................................................................................... 187
Chapter 6 – Integrated Programming: Outdoor Education as Pedagogy............... 192
6.1 Integrated Curriculum........................................................................................... 192
6.1.1 Thematic Approach to Teaching.................................................................... 194
6.1.2 Structuring of Integrated Programs................................................................ 196
6.1.3 Central Features ............................................................................................. 200
6.2 Program Benefits for Students .............................................................................. 202
Authentic Learning ............................................................................................. 204
Personal Growth.................................................................................................. 206
6.3 Barriers for Implementation.................................................................................. 211
6.4 The Blending of Curriculum and Pedagogy ......................................................... 217
Chapter 7 – Qualitative Analysis of Canadian Integrated Outdoor Programs ...... 219
7.1 Articulating the Position of Outdoor Education in Schools.................................. 219
7.1.1 Purpose and Role of Primary Research Study ............................................... 221
7.2 Research Methodology ......................................................................................... 224
7.2.1 Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Analysis ....................................... 224
7.2.2 Participant Recruitment ................................................................................. 225
7.2.3 Ethics Review and University Requirements ................................................ 227
7.2.4 Structure and Analysis of Research Survey................................................... 228
7.3 Overview of Participating Integrated Programs ................................................... 232
7.4 Teacher Feedback of Research Survey ................................................................. 235
ix
7.4.1 Outdoor Education as Pedagogy.................................................................... 235
7.4.2 Outdoor Education as Curriculum ................................................................. 238
7.4.3 Formal Teacher Training ............................................................................... 244
7.4.4 Alternate Teacher Training............................................................................ 249
7.4.5 Formal Relation of Outdoor Education in Schools........................................ 254
7.5 Trends in Teacher Approach and Critical Issues .................................................. 261
7.6 Summary of General Findings .............................................................................. 270
Chapter 8 – Implementation Design for Outdoor Education in Schools ................. 271
8.1 Defining the Role of Outdoor Education in Schools ............................................ 271
8.1.1 Dimensions of Outdoor Learning .................................................................. 273
8.1.2 Integration into Existing Public School Structure ......................................... 278
8.1.3 Struggles between Adventure and Environmental Education ....................... 283
8.2 Design and Structure of a Balanced Outdoor Education Training Program......... 287
8.2.1 Case Study: The Moray House School of Education.................................... 289
8.2.2 The Needs within a Teacher-Training Program............................................. 292
8.2.3 The Needs for a Teacher-Training Program .................................................. 296
8.3 Enhancing Outdoor Education in Schools through Integrated Programming ...... 301
Chapter 9 – Conclusions and Future Work ............................................................... 305
9.1 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 305
9.1.1 The Relation of Curriculum and Pedagogy for Outdoor Education .............. 306
9.1.2 The Integration of Outdoor Education in Public Schools.............................. 310
9.2 Future Work .......................................................................................................... 314
Reference List................................................................................................................ 317
Appendices..................................................................................................................... 333
Appendix A: Research Participant Requests .............................................................. 333
Appendix B: Research Informed Consent Waiver...................................................... 335
Appendix C: Research Participant Survey Form........................................................ 337
x
Introduction
Throughout the last few decades, outdoor education, as an activity and as a field
of study, has grown to span many social uses including recreational organizations, at-risk
adolescent programs, rehabilitation initiatives, corporate leadership retreats, and group-
focused environmental workshops (Priest & Gass, 2005). Interestingly enough, the
origins of our current view and practice in this field rests within the realm of schools,
with Kurt Hahn being recognized as one of the founding fathers (Richards, 1990; James,
1995a, 1995b). What makes this point particularly poignant is that this relationship
between outdoor education and public schools has had such stress and difficulty
throughout the years, and as a result it can be argued that outdoor education has never
gained a significant foothold in the Canadian educational system. With outdoor education
providing such an effective learning environment, this naturally begs the question: What
has prevented a greater degree of inclusion of outdoor education in our public school
system? It is the search for understanding behind this synergy of outdoor education and
public schooling that prompted the work presented in this thesis. In this dissertation I
have laid out an argument that demonstrates how outdoor education in the context of
public education can be thought of separately as both a method, or pedagogy, and as
content, or curriculum. Furthermore, I propose that this relationship between pedagogy
and curriculum and the corresponding failure to recognize that they are potentially
separable creates difficulty in the incorporation of outdoor education into public schools.
Outdoor education has been recognized as a practice that potentially allows for
individual participants to reflect and restructure their existing social constructs and
provides an influential avenue to develop an empowering attitude and transformative
1
moments in the individual’s lives (Itin, 1999). Central to its practice, perhaps even the
most significant cornerstone, is the notion of experiential education as a means of
structuring the medium of outdoor education. Experiential education focuses on learning
through a cycle of action and reflection, where the participant engages (ideally with
personal investment) in an activity which is then followed by a reflective stage, where the
individual attempts to understand both action and reason and also how they relate to their
existing perceptions of themselves, their social group, or their particular area of study
(Joplin, 1995).
Despite the fact that such a framework is sought after for many initiatives in
public education, outdoor education has continuously suffered a position of limited
exposure in schools. Though some believe that a potential incompatibility exists between
outdoor education and schools (Lindsay & Ewert, 1999), it is again interesting to note
that through the endeavors of Kurt Hahn the field of outdoor education has its roots in
that very system of education (Miner, 1990). Here, Hahn established Salem Schule
(Peace School), in Germany, and later Gordonstoun School, in the UK, with the focus on
impelling excellence in moral character of youth through arduous adventure and
challenge, thus essentially not only incorporating outdoor education into the school
system but making it a fundamental pillar of learning.
From this origin and current lack of integration, the key question then naturally
arises: Why do such difficulties persist for the inclusion of outdoor education in public
schools and what elements or conditions continue to exasperate this relationship? Where
other areas of outdoor education, such as recreational organizations and other
development programs, require the use of outdoor education as a driving force for both
2
pedagogy and curriculum, public schools over the years and in different initiatives have
the ability to select piecemeal outdoor education as either the pedagogy or curriculum of
a project, based on the designer’s particular interest. In this thesis, I demonstrate how the
lack of articulation of this duality of outdoor education has not only enabled those
opposed to its use to create false arguments against its implementation, but also poses
challenges for those in favor of incorporating outdoor education in schools. Derived
from this, I frame this argument in terms of its incorporation into integrated school
programs and teacher training programs as key facets to strengthen this field and its
utilization within public schools.
In order to achieve this, first I provide a detailed examination of the theory of
experiential education in Chapter One. I profile the early contributors who initiated the
discussion on the importance of experience for the construction of knowledge, notably
John Dewey, whose work in this area has had significant influence over public schooling
in recent years (Dewey, 1938, 1916). From this, the importance of experience for
learning is further refined to include the critical element of reflection; that is to say, an
experience by itself is not enough to be valued as an educative moment unless the
participant restructures their understanding based upon it (Itin, 1999). This framework
defines the essence of experiential education as the process of learning by doing with
reflection (Priest & Gass, 2005). To further reinforce the theory of experiential education,
I examine David Kolb’s work on experiential learning and learning cycles (1984) and
Donald Schön’s work on reflective professional practice, including reflection-in-action
(1991, 1987, 1983). The works of Paulo Freire (1992, 1970) and Ira Shor (1992, 1987)
emphasize the relation between the individual viewpoint of experiential education and the
3
value of a social context in terms of providing an avenue for the conception of a
liberating education. Here the notion of praxis is explored in relation to experiential
education as the means of generating reflection and action upon the world in order to
transform it (Freire, 1970). Finally, the value of the teacher, or facilitator, is addressed as
being of critical importance to the effective use of experiential education.
Following this overview of experiential education, in Chapter Two I reintegrate
this theory with the practice of outdoor education. I establish a clear definition of outdoor
education and outline the origin of this field, including the influential works of William
James (1910), particularly his theory on a moral equivalent to war as a means to
developing excellence in youth, and Kurt Hahn’s school programs and his establishment
of Outward Bound (Richards, 1990; James, 1995a, 1995b). From this, the critical
elements of outdoor education are discussed: the notions of a socially and physically
unfamiliar learning environment as a means of re-framing and understanding existing
social constructs for individuals (Priest & Gass, 2005), flow state as a means of defining
peak performance in such a learning environment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990), the
concept of risk in relation to developing peak performance (Hunt, 1990b; Priest &
Baillie, 1995), and the ethical considerations of informed consent and its relation to these
elements (Hunt, 1991, 1990b). From all this, the value of outdoor education is critically
examined in terms of its relevance and influence on general society. Here, the idea of
transference is articulated as a means of developing skills and understanding in the realm
of outdoor education that can be applied to the overall scope of an individual’s life and
social interactions (Hatch & McCarthy, 2005; Gass, 1995). This discussion includes
Stephen Bacon’s theory for the conscious use of metaphor (1983) as a bridge between
4
outdoor education and everyday life, as well as other works on the notion of rites of
passage and how outdoor education can provide transformative moments for individuals
and their understanding (Bell, 2003; Beames, 2004).
In order to situate outdoor education within the context of public schooling a
careful examination of the structural compatibility between the two is offered in Chapter
Three. Here, two critical elements are discussed: the role of the institution and the role of
the teacher or educator. To frame our understanding of the role of the public school and
that of outdoor education as an institution, the work of Michel Foucault and his theory of
discipline and power is explored, particularly his idea of relations of power (1975). By
examining his views on the docile body, the means of correct training (defined as
hierarchical observation, normalizing judgments, and the examination), and institutional
frameworks (in terms of the panopticon) comparisons will be made between the two
systems of education. Here I will demonstrate how outdoor education, although typically
thought of as emancipatory in nature, does indeed use similar control mechanisms as
traditional or mainstream schools, but generally has moved focus away from the
individual towards a group control model. In the second half of this chapter, the work of
Donald Schön and his theories on the reflective practitioner (1991, 1987 & 1983) are
discussed in order to examine the relation, and similarity, of the educator in both outdoor
education and public education. Here comparisons are made between the roles that a
proficient school teacher and an outdoor education facilitator utilize and model in order
to provide and effective learning environment. Learning loops set the stage for an
important consideration of group dynamics that Schön and Chris Argyris have
categorized simply as model I and model II interactions (Argyris & Schön, 1974). From
5
this viewpoint what I propose is that typically when individuals address an
incompatibility in teaching methodology between outdoor education and public schools
they are wrongfully doing so by placing public schools in a model I situation while
understanding outdoor education strictly as a model II interaction, when in fact both
systems have the potential to be either.
In Chapter Four, I consider outdoor education’s potentially transformative role in
public education as a means of praxis and re-framing our understanding in terms of what
benefit it can bring to students through its inclusion in schools. It will be shown that
many of the concepts and roles that outdoor education has for students, teachers, and
learning are often sought after in the realm of public schools. As such, outdoor education
offers at the very least a solid case study of effective practice, and this includes areas of
student engagement, cooperative environments, problem solving, and transfer of life
skills. By critically examining the relationship between outdoor education and schools, I
address possible points of opposition to integration of the two systems (through the work
of Lindsay & Ewert, 1999) as well as favorable points to integration (through the work of
Coleman, 1995). Of particular interest for the synergy between the two systems is the
notion that outdoor education can provide a solid experience base that is arguably lacking
for today’s youth, and that this actually allows for the enhancement and retention of
knowledge which bypasses experience that is typically presented in schools. Barriers to
integration are discussed, including issues of assessment dynamics (Horwood, 1995a;
Ives & Obenchain, 2006), political influences (Miner, 1993), the debate of certification
versus qualification (Plaut, 2001; Cockrell, 1990), and some initial considerations on
teacher training and preparation (Ives & Obenchain, 2006; Raffan, 1995; Sakofs, et al,
6
1995). I then suggest a framework for such interactions that defines outdoor education for
schools in three possible frames of reference: 1) supplementary outdoor programming, 2)
curricula-based outdoor programming, and 3) integrated outdoor programming, of which
curricula-based and integrated programming become key models in understanding
outdoor education in terms of its role as pedagogy and curriculum.
In Chapter Five, I demonstrate and frame outdoor education in terms of
curriculum by examining school board program initiatives for the development of
curriculum-specific outcomes for courses in New Zealand and the Australian states of
Victoria and South Australia. Typical outcomes were initially based on personal
development and health education courses, where the Australian states developed specific
outdoor education courses (Polley & Pickett, 2003; Lugg & Martin, 2001) while New
Zealand created outdoor education modules for their existing physical education classes
(Zink & Boyes, 2006). It has also been observed how a curricular ‘swing’ has occurred in
these established programs that have shifted from an emphasis on personal development
towards more specific curricular topics such as environmental science (Lugg, 1999).
From this cumulative work on outdoor education as curriculum, and the difficulties
associated with attempting to understand and frame its breadth and scope, a required
generalized body of knowledge has been suggested (Bucknell & Mannion, 2006), and
includes the topics of knowledge construction, outdoor environments, living and traveling
in outdoor environments, and ecological sustainability. In further examination of
curricula-based programming, I detail significant logistical barriers that hinder such
initiatives, and these include clear articulation of the content scope and proper qualified
staffing, as well as practical and resource limitations (also some support measures to
7
assist are profiled). I then propose how curricula-based programming in outdoor
education overlaps content with method in some cases, thus creating situations where
clear distinctions between the two systems of curriculum and pedagogy are not as
obvious and that a ‘sharing’ of programming styles can occur.
To contrast the work done on curricula-based programming, in Chapter Six I
explore the concepts and issues surrounding integrated programming with its emphasis
for outdoor education as pedagogy. Instead of relying on school board based curriculum,
teachers design and develop a thematic teaching model for outdoor education, where
existing course curricula are used and thus outdoor education becomes the method or
theme of the instruction and learning (Comishin & Potter, 2000). The framework for how
integrated programs are constructed is explored with emphasis on how such an approach
differs from traditional classroom environments and course scheduling by means of
developing a cohort structure (Horwood, 2002a, 1995; Russell & Burton, 2000), along
with the advantages of such a system (Henderson, 2002; Jupp, 1995). From this, I
summarize the research done on the impact of student performance and engagement
noting significant improvement in student ownership of learning and personal
development skills, and the authenticity of re-framed school content (thought of as
authentic learning). Here student input gives relevancy to school curriculum as ‘real-
world learning’ by acknowledging that content taught in class has immediate and
practical value to hands-on activities and explorations that are undertaken. In addition,
the personal growth aspect of these integrated programs is articulated by students to
include both intrapersonal (such as self-awareness and patience) and interpersonal (such
as trust and team-work), and it is seen to be of considerable value to how they approach
8
their learning environment. Again, barriers to implementation of such integrated
programs (Comishin, et al, 2004; Horwood, 2002a) are explored in a similar manner as
was done for curricula-based programs in the previous chapter. A noticeable change in
these barriers occurred in terms of the rise of more logistical difficulties, such as time
constraints and assessment strategies, and less on program design and scope of learning
(i.e. using existing school curriculum helped better define the role of outdoor education
for these programs).
After exploring these two key program styles of curricula-based and integrated
programming and establishing their relation to outdoor education as either curriculum
and/or pedagogy, in Chapter Seven I present primary research data profiling seven
Canadian outdoor integrated programs operating in public schools through a qualitative
study of eleven veteran teachers of outdoor education. This research was undertaken to
assist in understanding the dichotomy between outdoor education as pedagogy and as
curriculum, and identifying the importance in teacher training and preparation in the field
of outdoor education for its inclusion in public schools. An overview of each of the
programs is given to contextualize the scope and level of engagement that these programs
represent for student learning. From this study key points and issues are drawn out and
collated from the various research participants; including the fact that they defined the
role for their programs in school systems as largely providing 1) an experiential
framework for learning and 2) the development of personal skills (and how this can
extend beyond the context of applied academics). Other key findings included: that
outdoor education programs provide students with more than simply a wilderness
experience; their programs are founded in experiential or ‘hands-on’ learning
9
opportunities; their programs provide more than just academics, and the importance of
developing personal growth in their students was apparent; a shift to a holistic
understanding of student performance allows outdoor integrated programs to bring
something greater to the traditional and established high school system; personal growth
and the teaching approach was considered paramount for such programs; that additional
core topics to their programs did develop that were outside the required course outcomes
that they modeled their programs to cover; and they collectively saw teacher training to
be imperative for the continued success of all areas of outdoor education programs in
public schools. Much of the teacher participant feedback certainly framed their integrated
outdoor programs in terms of an emphasis on the importance of outdoor education as
pedagogy, but did not rule out outdoor education as curriculum entirely.
In Chapter Eight I connect my argument that we consider outdoor education as
being able to operate independently as either curriculum or pedagogy in public schools to
the context of teacher training programs. The work of Peter Higgins and other
contributors to teacher training in outdoor education is explored (Higgins, 2008; Nicol, et
al, 2006, 2007; Kendall, et al, 2006; Higgins & Morgan, 1999), as well as a detailed case
study of The Moray House School of Education in Scotland, with its established and
influential teacher preparation programs in this field of study (Higgins & Morgan, 1999;
Higgins, 1995). It has been suggested that outdoor education consists of the three major
themes of environmental, residential and adventure activities (Loynes, Michie & Smith,
1997), and I further propose that we can better understand these roles by their relation to
outdoor education as either curriculum or pedagogy. Additionally, as practitioners think
of outdoor education as education in, through, about, and for the natural heritage
10
(Higgins, 2008) I suggest this can be thought of again in terms of how we understand this
field of study as either content or method. Here I suggest education ‘in’ the natural
heritage simply becomes the base framework for the physical environment, ‘through’ the
natural heritage lends well to the idea of outdoor education as pedagogy, ‘about’ the
natural heritage speaks directly to outdoor education as curriculum, and that ‘for’ the
natural heritage represents Freire’s idea of praxis and becomes meta to the ‘through’ and
‘about’ elements of outdoor education. The importance of understanding outdoor
education in these terms, and as such becoming an important factor in teacher training
programs, lies in the fact that in this dissertation I have demonstrated how the public
school system can potentially incorporate these elements piecemeal into its practice. To
emphasize this point, an initial comparison of outdoor adventure education and that of
environmental education is explored. From all this, what I propose is that without a clear
understanding of this field the differences between outdoor education as curriculum
versus pedagogy can potentially work against each other to hinder its establishment in
public schools. Therefore, of critical importance is to design teacher training programs
that can articulate and address this issue in its development of future practitioners. This
point is refined by examining the potential benefits to both the individual teacher and also
the training program itself by addressing this issue. Finally, I consider the benefits of
using integrated programs as a preferred structure of introducing outdoor education into
the school system.
From the literature reviews, developed arguments, and primary research data
presented in this thesis I will conclude with two important aspects to the inclusion of
outdoor education in public schools. First is the point that outdoor education can be
11
thought of as operating as curriculum and/or pedagogy and that this point is important for
teacher training programs to address. Second is the fact that since individual teachers
have more direct control over outdoor education as pedagogy, through the means of
integrated outdoor programs rather than as curriculum, through the means of school
board designed curricula-based programs, that a natural chronology of implementation
exists. Finally, I will suggest where this dissertation can potentially direct future work in
this area, and this includes examining the relation of outdoor education to place-based
education, taking a deeper look at environmental education and its relation to outdoor
adventure education, an extended student-based research inquiry to examine how the
youth view such distinctions of outdoor education as curriculum and pedagogy, and
possibly examining how supplemental outdoor programming might actually be a
detriment to the rise of outdoor education in schools.
12
Chapter 1 – Experiential Education
In order to understand the potential interrelation between outdoor education and
the public education system, it is important to scrutinize critical elements in the
epistemology, pedagogy, and practice relating to outdoor education. To properly setup
this discussion it is vital to examine the notion of experiential education, from which
outdoor education relies so heavily upon. This chapter will look at some key aspects
relating to experiential education that will then be re-examined within the context of
outdoor education as presented in Chapter Two. The intention of this chapter is to
examine the mechanisms and theory of experiential education that allows it to be situated
as a key pillar in outdoor education.
In later chapters of this thesis, many points presented here on the approach and
mechanisms of experiential education will be noted and re-examined as critical elements
in the consideration of outdoor education as pedagogy within public schools. That is to
say, through the medium of outdoor education, it becomes this relation of experience and
learning that has sound pedagogical value.
1.1 Early Foundations for Experiential Education
To set the stage for experiential education, although John Dewey can be given a
great deal of credit for expanding on how experience shapes and influences education, he
was by no means the first philosopher to suggest such an idea. Even before John Locke
(1693) or Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) wrote on the critical role of experience in a
child’s cognitive development, the notion of structuring experience was discussed by Jan
13
Amos Comenius. Comenius has been considered ‘The Father of Modern Education’ by
many scholars and historians and may be one of the first to tackle this issue of experience
and how it relates to education. He published 154 books, many of which were banned by
the Roman Catholic Church; some of his greatest works included The Great Didactic
(1657), The Labyrinth of the World & Paradise of the Heart (1663), and Orbis Pictus
(World in Pictures, 1658) – the first picture book for children.
Possibly his greatest idea focused on what he called pansophy – a universal
system of education; the teaching of all things to all men and from all points of view
(pansophism, meaning “all knowledge”). This was to incorporate theology, philosophy,
metaphysics, and education into one, as he believed that learning, spiritual, and emotional
growth were interconnected. From this, Comenius derived his belief in spontaneous
development: a child’s mental cognition could be attributed to the maturation of
preformed structures. In other words, he was one of the first to suggest a genetic stage-
development theory for education. Based on this, it was his view that education needed to
be tailored to the cognitive needs of the learner in order to facilitate true learning.
Comenius’ view on stage development is significant because it placed the child or learner
at the center of educational theory. That is to say, the practice of teaching students must
take into account the realm of understanding and their mental development.
All things which can make men truly men, and the learned truly learned; they should be taught in consideration of the pupil’s age and the standard of his prior preparation, which should always tend gradually upward. (Comenius, 1657)
By this approach, Comenius believed that to teach, one had to fully engage the
learner. He felt that there was a natural desire in people to learn, and that the teacher
needed to exploit this interest in order to engage the student in the curriculum. He
14
believed in a hands-on approach that placed understanding in front of content knowledge,
and bringing the subject to the level of the learner and not that of the teacher; or in his
words: “Do not undertake any teaching without first arousing the interest of the pupil…
Always offer something which will be both agreeable and useful; the pupils’ minds will
thus be primed and they will come forward eagerly, with ever-ready attention.”
The argument that spontaneous development would occur in children if they were
properly nurtured meant that Comenius did not hold to the tradition of ‘teaching by the
cane’. His view was that education needed to draw out the natural and inherent desires of
a person to want to learn:
… the fault lies, not with the pupil, but with the master, and, if our skill is unable to make an impression on the understanding, our blows will have no effect. Indeed, by any application of force we are far more likely to produce a distaste for letters than a love for them. (Comenius, 1657)
These views of educational psychology are still applicable today.
In addition, Comenius held to the notion of what we today call the ‘life-long
learner’. He viewed four distinct stages or schoolings for education – infancy, childhood,
adolescence, and youth (now associated with pre-school, elementary, high school, and
university). It was his belief that each stage of development required a different approach
to teaching (stage theory) but that the basic structure of the material remained the same
(pansophy). Even today, we follow a similar approach where language arts, science,
mathematics, and history are taught to all grade levels, but in accordance with children’s
age and associated cognitive development.
In The Great Didactic, he wrote that content knowledge (examples) must come
before hierarchical structure (rules): “examples cannot be deduced from a rule unless the
rule is understood, but understanding of the rule derives from the retroactive organization
15
of examples already utilized in spontaneous practice.” Comenius saw that experience
must precede understanding: in order for a generalized rule to hold meaning, a student
must be able to construct understanding from previous active experience, otherwise, the
student will develop isolated knowledge and will not be able to bridge to other concepts
learned. Or in other words, a student must have something to work with first in order to
understand. Once the student is able to construct a rule based on previous experiences, he
or she is then able to deduce new relevant examples from it, thus generalizing outside of
his/her realm of experience and therefore building understanding. For example, if a child
picks and examines various fruit from trees, he or she may come to the conclusion (rule)
that all fruit have a tougher outer surface, a pulpy interior, and a pit, yet these ‘rules’ were
never explicitly defined. Although Comenius never used the phrase ‘experiential
education’, his ideas about student learning were similar to many of today’s ‘modern’
leaders are in this field, which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two of this
thesis.
Where Comenius considered the child’s cognitive development as the center for
learning, John Locke took an even greater step by considering the child itself to be the
center for the entire learning environment, by not only considering the child’s learning
pattern to be key but the entire social construct that the child develops and interacts
within. This notion of student-centered learning is still prized in our current education
system, but unfortunately often difficult to implement with any great success. Locke
believed in an educational system that enhanced learning by engaging students through
natural habits and practices. “Curiosity in children is but an appetite after knowledge and
therefore ought to be encouraged in them” (Locke, 1693: 93). Locke’s entire framework
16
of education was modeled on such a structural approach and can be seen by one of his
examples of using letter blocks for the development of written languages. This idea of
student engagement contrasted significantly with the practice of his peers, who saw
education as an instructor-lead dissemination of knowledge where the students were
regarded as mere vessels to be filled with content. Countering this point, Locke put
forward the idea that a child would learn significantly more when they take possession of
their learning and become an active participant in dialogue. “He will better comprehend
the foundations and measures of decency and justice and have livelier and more lasting
impressions of what he ought to do, by giving his opinion on cases proposed and
reasoning with his tutor on fit instances than by giving silent, negligent, sleepy audience
to his tutor’s lectures” (Locke, 1693: 74).
Yet few modern classrooms are arranged in such a way as to provide a student-
centered learning environment. The majority of students still face the teacher’s desk at
the head of the class, waiting (far from eagerly) to be told what they need to learn, or
more critically, to regurgitate the teacher’s information as a false indicator of reflection
and comprehension. Locke opposed this style of learning and was able to articulately
defend his position and the needs of the student as paramount. His success and influence
has been demonstrated by countless systems, curricula, and teachers attempting their best
at modeling such an effective approach to teaching, despite the stronghold of the
traditional classroom.
Like Comenius and Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau envisioned the success of
education as being student-centered. Although elements of Rousseau’s work can be seen
in our modern system of education, his theories were so far reaching and generated such
17
complex controlled conditions of learning that they are often difficult to apply.
Rousseau’s fundamental argument is that education needs to focus on nature and man
rather than the artificial and damaging constructs of society. He devised a theoretical
learning environment to allow intellectual growth that would produce a virtuous and wise
mind through its own applications of sensory experience and this would eventually be
followed by reason. “The truly free man wants only what he can do and does what he
pleases. That is my fundamental maxim. It need only be applied to childhood for all the
rules of education to flow from it” (Rousseau, 1762: 84).
This theory derived from Rousseau’s ideas that society was simply a corrupting
force that could only harm the student’s development. With this extreme view of
antisocial development, Rousseau placed value on the isolation of the education
environment and thus allowing his student to develop as a product of nature. This could
be argued to be a reactionary stance based on the failings of education that he perceived
as unable to produce individuals who could see beyond their own social bias.
Each advances more or less according to his genius, his taste, his needs, his talents, his zeal, and the occasions he has to devote himself to them. I know of no philosopher who has yet been so bold as to say: this is the limit of what man can attain and beyond which he cannot go. We do not know what are nature permits us to be. (Rousseau, 1762: 62)
Though modern education attempts to utilize some of Rousseau’s goals of
focusing on the nature of children and their education, this is often done without success
as society’s construct and influence permeates through every aspect of the classroom. It
can be argued that Rousseau’s educational construct can not even be achieved in “mass
education” because it was designed for the isolation of a single student and tutor from
society (as Rousseau saw society as a corrupting force in the education of the child).
18
1.2 The Influence of John Dewey
Such a view for the value of experience as perceived by Comenius, Locke,
Rousseau and others is certainly a precedent for much of the work of John Dewey.
Considered by many as ‘the father of progressivism’, Dewey’s emphasis on education
centered on the student-as-learner rather than the teacher as the provider of knowledge
(and that the teacher now needs to become facilitator or guide). As such, he saw the role
of education in society being of greater fundamental purpose than simply ‘vocational
training’:
Our net conclusion is that life is development, and that developing, growing, is life. Translated into its educational equivalents, that means (i) that the educational process has no end beyond itself; it is its own end; and that (ii) the educational process is one of continual reorganizing, reconstructing, transforming. (Dewey, 1916: 50)
This view does not provide for or support a static concept of knowledge assimilation;
instead, it focuses on the construction of knowledge as a process, and one that is
intimately linked with the role and function of the learner.
The trouble with traditional education was not that educators took upon themselves the responsibility for providing an environment. The trouble was that they did not consider the other factor in creating an experience; namely, the powers and purposes of those taught. It was assumed that a certain set of conditions was intrinsically desirable, apart from its ability to evoke a certain quality of response in individuals. This lack of mutual adaptation made the process of teaching and learning accidental. (Dewey, 1938: 44)
For Dewey, true authentic learning, not rote memorization, required the active
participation of the student in his/her learning, and the learning environment was one that
could shape experience into an educational form. This focus on ‘student-centered’
learning brought the importance of experience to the forefront of his educational theories.
19
To best understand Dewey’s approach, it is useful to examine some criticisms of
his work and his responses. As with any popular theory in education, Dewey’s was not
without opposition. Some authors (for example, Knapp, 1994) believe that many
elements of experiential education are simply a reinvention of progressivism, which
could have possibly evolved in order to avoid potential bad connotations of the theory in
modern practice. One of Dewey’s latter works, Experience and Education (1938), was
written largely in response to demands to refine some of his positions ‘against’ traditional
education and to address how his work was already being used incorrectly within
education. When speaking of experiential education or progressivism, one must
understand Dewey’s ‘either/or’ dilemma (Dewey, 1938: 1). It was his belief that no
theory or approach had significant value if it was derived simply as a counterattack to
existing practices:
There is always the danger in a new movement that in rejecting the aims and methods of that which it would supplant, it may develop its principles negatively rather than positively and constructively. Then it takes its clew [evidence] in practice from that which is rejected instead of from the constructive development of its own philosophy. (Dewey, 1938: 6)
In considering progressivism as a reactionary opposition to traditional practice, Dewey
was concerned that the development of its proper pedagogical aims would be stymied. He
commented that “the problem for progressive education is: What is the place and
meaning of subject-matter and of organization within experience? How does subject-
matter function?… A philosophy which proceeds on the basis of rejection, of sheer
opposition, will neglect these questions” (Dewey, 1938: 7). These statements of Dewey’s
may surprise many who consider themselves followers of his practice. But his point is
important to consider: as educators we cannot view the ideals of progressivism as always
20
being in opposition to traditionalism if progressivism is to gain any ground other than
being simply reactionary to current practices.
Dewey believed that considering either progressivism or traditionalism was a
mistake, and that there should be a dialogue that focused simply on the best practices and
theories out there. For experiential education, this has significance in that it should not be
considered necessary to reject the standard public schooling practices in order to embrace
experiential education. As such, it could then be argued that standard schooling practices
may have value in terms of how they shape and construct the framework under which
experiential education operates. However, of the interplay between traditional and
progressivist education Dewey did say that “we may reject knowledge of the past as the
end of education and thereby emphasize its importance as a means” (Dewey, 1938: 11).
That is to say, even though he may have believed in avoiding an ‘either/or’ position, this
could be done without sacrificing the belief that knowledge must be a medium for
understanding and not the sole purpose. In other words, understanding (thinking skills) is
not a product of knowledge or content but rather how one can reflect and construct this
knowledge to gain meaning. Later in this chapter I will explore the concepts that evolved
from this critical notion by reflecting on the ways in which experiential education does
(or can) enhance and contribute to the existing practice of education, but first I will
discuss other associating theories to properly frame the discussion.
This brings us to perhaps the most important contribution that Dewey’s theories
have had on experience in education. As previously mentioned, Dewey saw to shape
experience into an educational form. Many who countered his ideas wrongly did so when
they argued that simply having a ‘hands-on’ experience did not contribute to, or enhance,
21
a student’s learning potential. The argument, used in various forms many times over the
years, has been to the effect that:
We can all recognize the difference between learning something profoundly important in our everyday environment and the drone of a dull pedagogy. We can also recognize the difference between a dreary day in our too-familiar local environment and a teacher who opens our eyes to exciting new worlds simply by talking… we have all those ‘hands-on’ activities while [the student’s] intellectual energy is hardly engaged with anything significant in the wider cultural world. (Egan, 2002: 110)
Not only had Dewey addressed the concern for such an either/or approach, but he also
addressed the most fundamental point about experience: not all experience is educative.
The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other. For some experiences are mis-educative. Any experience is mis-educative that has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience. (Dewey, 1938: 13)
Hence, as educators, we must look at experiences that have educative value by providing
a pathway to the next potential learning moment, thus the essence of progressivism, and
not simply look to ‘activities’ that engage students in active, but potentially meaningless,
work. Through the work of Dewey we can understand the fundamental difference
between authentic experience used to build upon the education of a learner and the
potential for mis-education – experiences that do not contribute to one’s learning
environment. For example, based on Dewey’s understanding of mis-educative
experiences it can be argued that religious beliefs, under this model, would fall into the
category of mis-educative because they frame the knowledge as an end to the education
rather than a means. That is to say, religious doctrine, by being unchallenged truisms, has
the potential to distort the growth of further experience.
22
1.3 The Interplay between Action and Reflection
Dewey’s work established the need for experience in education and laid the
foundations for the field of experiential education (Itin, 1999). However, this field has
drawn from the theories of a number of other educational philosophers and psychology
researchers who have examined how learners construct authentic experiences into
valuable educative moments: the interplay between action, or direct experience, and
reflection. Experiential education has been defined in many ways, including “a process
through which a learner constructs knowledge, skill and value from direct experience”
(Association for Experiential Education, 1994) and “learning by doing with reflection”
(Priest & Gass, 2005: 16), and it has been stated that “experience alone is insufficient to
be called experiential education, and it is the reflection process which turns experience
into experiential education” (Joplin, 1995: 15). Thus, learning by doing with reflection
eloquently summarizes the fundamental nature of experiential education. However, much
work has been done and needs to be discussed in order to fully understand the
implications of such simple words as ‘doing’ and ‘reflection’. Does ‘doing’ need to be
constructed as hands-on? How does ‘reflection’ manifest itself, and when it does how can
educators determine if authentic reflection and engagement is occurring?
1.3.1 Learning Cycles
From these questions asked, it becomes clear that simply having a definition of
experiential education still leaves us trying to understand the mechanism of how
experience, and reflection, is used actively to construct knowledge. Although David Kolb
(1984) has proposed a detailed and sound model for experiential learning, I will first
23
present a few other examples in order to demonstrate a similar convergence of ideas on
this issue. Christian Itin reviewed seven different models of experiential learning, stating
that “each includes: 1) action that creates an experience, 2) reflection on the action and
experience, 3) abstractions drawn from reflection, and 4) application of the abstraction to
a new experience or action” (1999: 91). Likewise, Laura Joplin (1995) defined a five-
stage model of experiential education that she referred to as an ‘action-reflection’ cycle
comprising of 1) focus, 2) action, 3) support, 4) feedback, and 5) debrief. This uses the
central premise of knowledge constructed through both experience and reflection, but she
also considered the roles of the group (community) and instructor/evaluator. Thus,
elements such as reflection can be framed in the context of instructor-led group debrief
sessions.
It is important to note here that the schema of these authors have now made the
distinction between experiential education and experiential learning:
Debrief helps the student learn from experience. Debrief is a sorting and ordering of information, often involving personal perceptions and beliefs. In experiential learning – as opposed to experiential education – debrief may occur within the individual. However, in experiential education, debrief needs to be made public… It is the publicly verifiable articulation which makes experience and experiential learning capable of inclusion and acceptance by the educational institutions. The public nature of debrief also ensures that the learner’s conclusions are verified and mirrored against a greater body of perception than his alone. (Joplin, 1995: 19)
Thus when examining the reflection / debrief stage one can consider that experiential
education has a social context that is not only present, but actually enhances the entire
process and provides more to the learner, by having the learner’s conclusions weighed by
more than just their own perception. This social role existing in experiential education,
thus differing it from experiential learning, will be further framed in Chapter Two once
24
we have examined the context of outdoor education (and will become important once we
consider the role of outdoor education in public schools in later chapters). In addition, it
should be noted that once we move away from individual (isolated) learning towards
instructor-led group debrief sessions there is always the potential for distortion. The exact
nature of how an instructor facilitates a learning moment can alter the understanding or
role of the learner in that process. Further insight into this issue will be examined in
Chapter Three where the exact role of the instructor, both in schools and outdoor
education, will be critiqued, and also a preliminary examination of the role of the teacher
in experiential education will be discussed in section 1.5 of this chapter.
1.3.2 David Kolb and Experiential Learning
An insightful, complex, and detailed mechanism of experiential learning was
developed by David Kolb. In his book, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source
of Learning and Development, he defined learning as “the process whereby knowledge is
created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984: 38). Kolb saw learning as
an active process that required the learners to manipulate and interact with their
medium/environment in order to construct knowledge. As such, he believed experiential
learning was closer to ‘authentic learning’ – the natural unobstructed way in which
people construct understanding in their lives – than traditional forms of outcome-based
education, such as information assimilation or rote memorization.
When viewed from the perspective of experiential learning, the tendency to define learning in terms of outcomes can become a definition of nonlearning, in the process sense that the failure to modify ideas and habits as a result of experience is maladaptive… The fact that learning is a continuous process grounded in experience has important educational implications. Put simply, it implies that all learning is relearning… Thus,
25
one’s job as an educator is not only to implant new ideas but also to dispose of or modify old ones. In many cases, resistance to new ideas stems from their conflict with old beliefs that are inconsistent with them. If the education process begins by bringing out the learner’s beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, and then integrating the new, more refined ideas into a person’s belief system, the learning process will be facilitated. (Kolb, 1984: 26-28)
From this, Kolb proposed and outlined four stages or learning modes as a model for
experiential education:
New knowledge, skills, or attitudes are achieved through confrontation among four modes of experiential learning. Learners, if they are to be effective, need four different kinds of abilities – concrete experience abilities (CE), reflective observation abilities (RO), abstract conceptualization abilities (AC), and active experimentation (AE) abilities. That is, they must be able to involve themselves fully, openly, and without bias in new experiences (CE). They must be able to reflect on and observe their experiences from many perspectives (RO). They must be able to create concepts that integrate their observations into logically sound theories (AC), and they must be able to use these theories to make decisions and solve problems (AE). (Kolb, 1984: 30)
The four adaptive learning modes – concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualization, and active experimentation – share many similarities with the process
of experiential learning described later by Itin. Yet, many elements of Kolb’s theories
have been glossed over in reviews, which have also simplified his proposed learning
modes, and this needs to be addressed here in order to fully appreciate his view of
experiential learning. For example, one researcher claimed Kolb’s “four [learning] modes
are not required for learning to take place, and demonstrates that this component of the
theory is rife with inherent contradiction and inconsistency” (Webb, 2003).
First, Kolb saw these four learning modes as having the potential of being
separate and isolated; it was not necessary for them to follow in a progressive and
integrated cycle. Kolb even linked these learning modes to the different Jungian
26
personality types (Kolb, 1984: 79), indicating that individuals may have particular
strengths or weaknesses amongst these modes. It could be argued that extroverted
personality types have better cognitive mechanisms for dealing with the learning modes
of concrete experience and active experimentation, while the introvert would excel at
reflective observation and abstract conceptualization.
There is a correspondence between the Jungian concepts of introversion and the experiential learning mode of reflective observation via intentional transformation, and between extraversion and active experimentation via extension. In addition, concrete experience and the apprehension process are clearly associated with both the sensing approach to perception and the feeling approach to judging. Abstract conceptualization and the comprehension process, on the other hand, are related to the intuition approach to perceiving and the thinking approach to judging. (Kolb, 1984: 79)
Thus, before proceeding to implement such a process, educators must consider and
critically examine whether their students will struggle through, and succeed with, this
process of experiential learning. One might even consider that innate differences in
personality types may hinder the full development of an integrated experiential learning
schema.
Kolb elaborated on this critical issue when he developed a three dimensional
model for experiential learning. The central premise of his work was that the four
learning modes previously discussed comprised the base, or circle, of a cone, where each
would be used independently of one another in the learning process. However, he
envisioned that, as one moved up the cone, these four modes would become integrated,
eventually leading to an experiential learning theory similar to others already presented
here (Kolb, 1984: 141). He saw this process as cognitive development on the part of the
learner (Kolb, 1984: 98); the refining of skills necessary in order for a learner to fully and
27
effectively utilize experiential learning. From this, Kolb derived three general ‘levels’ of
development: acquisition, specialization, and integration (Kolb, 1984: 141). For example,
at the acquisition level an individual may have a particular aptitude for reflective
observation (RO) but not be able to take their learning potential to the fullest due to not
linking these ideas with active experimentation (AE); they may be potentially able to
notice a discrepancy of some form in an action but not be able to design an experiment to
test their insight into the situation. Therefore, working up the three general levels implies
greater cognitive learning as all four learning abilities compliment and strengthen one
another.
Ideally, at the peak of the cone (moving from specialization to integration), a
learner would fully integrate the four modes of learning into an experiential learning
cycle. Yet, from this notion comes a disturbing point about how Kolb views experiential
education: as a developmental process, there would be times, or ages, where one may not
be capable of such a model of learning. Although certainly a notion similar to Piaget’s
stage theory of development (Piaget, 1964), he states without any reference or evidence
that stage one, acquisition, “extends from birth to adolescence and marks the acquisition
of basic learning abilities and cognitive structures” (Kolb, 1984: 142). Therefore, even
though educators have used his work to justify the use of experiential education for
youth, they have missed the point that Kolb may have believed this to be a premature act.
However, as he does not outline any reason or explanation for this view, and in light of
others that have examined experiential education both in terms of practice and research,
such a model still holds validity for consideration.
28
However, it is important to acknowledge and reflect on possible limitations of
such a theory, even if they have not been fully proven. Since Kolb sees the acquisition
stage as a necessary development towards an integrated experiential learning schema, and
one that may be limiting based on age, as educators we must consider if students may be
too young to be successful with such pedagogies. Have there not been those students that
teachers often say did all the work but were unable to make the ‘correct’ connections?
The other aspect that Kolb did not explore further was whether or not his notion of
experiential learning could be improved through conditioning. Might it be possible for
educators to increase students’ thinking schemes from acquisition to integration by
exposing them, in stages, to material requiring such connections to be made? However,
regardless of these possible points what does come out of his work is Kolb’s belief that
experiential learning represents a more authentic way for individuals to construct
knowledge.
1.3.3 Donald Schön and the Reflective Practitioner
Many writers on the topic of experiential education have demonstrated that its
significance in the learning potential for the individual is in the fact that action is
followed, in some form, by reflection, and it is this reflection aspect that differentiates an
educative moment from a non- or mis-educative moment. By including the element of
reflection in the process of experiential education, it is necessary to discuss Donald
Schön. Although Schön never wrote directly about experiential education, his research
and argument on this issue of reflection (particularly among the professions) may be
considered to be the most in-depth and articulated among the writers presented here. In
29
Chapter Three, I will discuss more of Schön’s work, but for now I would like to focus
and discuss a number of points that he has made about the concept of reflection, in order
to understand its significance within experiential education.
First and foremost, Schön considered an element of reflection as what he called
‘reflection-in-action’. Such an understanding, when used in terms of experiential
education, allows us to consider that the learning process, in practice, is not as defined or
as rigid as our proposed mechanisms of experiential learning cycles may suggest. This
position also allowed him to address the criticism that reflection may interfere with
action:
The fear that reflection-in-action will trigger an infinite regress of reflection derives from an unexamined dichotomy of thought and action. If we separate thinking from doing, seeing thought only as a preparation for action and action only as an implementation of thought, then it is easy to believe that when we step into the separate domain of thought we will become lost in an infinite regress of thinking about thinking. But in actual reflection-in-action, as we have seen, doing and thinking are complementary. Doing extends thinking in the tests, moves, and probes of experimental action, and reflection feeds on doing and its results. (Schön, 1983: 280)
Thus, the potentially smooth integration between action and reflection can be seen as a
synergy of events rather than a formal process. This also allows one to understand how a
learner can still reflect on tacit knowledge within the moment while not necessarily being
able to articulate the construction of such knowledge, where tacit knowledge can be
defined as the knowledge that individuals have without understanding the reasons, causes
or explanations behind it (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 10). Thus if one considers experiential
education as a formal process of action proceeding reflection, they may miss the
‘backtalk’ of the learning moment and how learners construct understanding from tacit
knowledge (either within a group setting or in the mind of the learner).
30
A second important point that Schön brings to this discussion is when reflection-
in-action, as used in experiential education, will lead to an active, conscious and
educative reconstruction of knowledge, rather than an un-educative or mis-educative
experience. It is important that we consider how reflection can re-frame our experience or
previous understanding of our environment.
Much reflection-in-action hinges on the experience of surprise. When intuitive, spontaneous performance yields nothing more than the results expected for it, then we tend not to think about it. But when intuitive performance leads to surprises, pleasing and promising or unwanted, we may respond by reflecting-in-action. (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 56)
Often, this point may be missed by educators in practice in any field, and the result is that
learners do not appear ‘engaged’ in their learning; without a moment or situation to create
a discrepant event, little reflection on existing already-confirmed suppositions will occur.
This critical point will surface again in the second chapter of this thesis when I explore
outdoor education and its relatively distinctive learning environment. For now, it is
important to remember the implications of this means that experiential education is the
re-framing and reconstruction of knowledge for the individual, in order for such a
pedagogy to be deemed effective. As such, Schön suggests that reflection-in-action
follows the key ‘moments’ of 1) a situation of action, 2) resulting in a surprise, which 3)
gives rise to reflection-in-action, and resulting in 4) on-the-spot experiment (Schön,
1987: 28). Although his writings dealt with the reflective practitioner and were not
directly constructed within the research area of experiential education, Schön’s learning
cycle is similar to others in this field. Such a view was also supported by Dewey when he
states:
Mere activity does not constitute experience. It is dispersive, centrifugal, dissipating. Experience as trying involves change, but change is
31
meaningless transition unless it is consciously connected with the return wave of consequences which flow from it. When an activity is continued into the undergoing of consequences, when the change made by action is reflected back into change made in us, the mere flux is loaded with significance. (Dewey, 1916: 139)
Thus we start to see here how experiential learning, or on-the-spot reflection, requires a
discrepant event or change that requires the learner to reconsider their belief structure.
For example, a small child may never think about (reflect on) the fact that the sky is blue
if this is all they have witnessed. Yet if the child was to see the deep red of a beautiful
sunset, this may cause him/her to actively question their previous belief system, and thus
an educative moment is created. This results not so much from an active experience, but
an action/reflection synergy that creates the difference between passive observer and
active learner. Of course to finish such a learning moment, as Schön (and Kolb) have
suggested there must be on-the-spot experimentation. How this stage plays out would
mark the difference between an educative experience and un-educative one. Thus, the
importance of experiential education is not simply in an action/reflection stage approach,
but rather in reflection-in-action that allows the learner to re-frame experiences derived
from discrepant events that brings tacit understanding into question through on-the-spot
experimentation.
From this, an important point that can be derived from Schön’s work is the ways
in which a learner uses reflection-in-action to transform, re-frame, or actively interact
with their environment. Schön has suggested methods that we use action and reflection to
generate on-the-spot experiments for the purposes of either further understanding or
transforming our environment:
The inquirer who reflects-in-action plays a game with the situation in which he is bound by considerations relevant to the three levels of
32
experiment – exploration, move testing, and hypothesis testing. His primary interest is in changing the situation. But if he ignores its resistances to change, he falls into mere self-fulfilling prophecy. He experiments rigorously when he strives to make the situation conform to his view of it, while at the same time he remains open to the evidence of his failure to do so. He must learn by reflection on the situation’s resistance that his hypothesis is inadequate, and in what way, or that his framing of the problem is inadequate, and in what way. Moreover, he plays his game in relation to a moving target, changing the phenomena as he experiments. (Schön, 1983: 152)
In other words, the reflection on on-the-spot experimentation can re-frame an
understanding of an event but at the same time is defined by such an event. For example,
in the case of the red sunset it is insufficient to assume the color change is due to the time
of day, since the situation’s resistance to such a hypothesis testing is in the fact that the
time of sunset changes throughout the year. Observing such backtalk to the situations
could allow one to then question the location of the sun in relation to color, an
exploration that might not have occurred in the experimenter was not opened in his or her
reflection.
The last point from Schön’s work that I wish to discuss here is his notion of
virtual worlds. Here, he sees the value of sometimes conducting all three levels of testing
in a virtual, or imaginary, world within the mind of the learner in order to experiment
with elements derived from reflection-in-action. The importance is that “virtual worlds
are contexts for experiment within which practitioners can suspend or control some of
everyday impediments to rigorous reflection-in-action” (Schön, 1987: 77). When many
individuals are presented with a problem, for example scrambling over a vertical wall in a
team effort, they will often first engage their actions in a virtual world. Even before the
first person has approached the wall, many have envisioned the successes or failures of
different attempts although none were actually made. Here they are able to anticipate how
33
particular actions may or may not go based on their tacit knowledge of perceived
outcomes; they might have a ‘feeling’ that it would take more than three people to lift
another over the wall even though they have yet to attempt it. This active reflection of a
virtual world allows for a similar learning mechanism of a real world experience.
This becomes important when we consider that effective experiential education
involves action/environment, reflection, and experimentation, but, as can be seen in
Schön’s idea, this may not necessarily mean an ‘active hands-on’ approach to learning.
The validity of this approach means that the standard criticism of ‘hands-on’
progressivism, or experiential education, as ‘busy work’ may not actually be the case.
Therefore, we may need to think of experiential education in terms of a ‘hands-on/minds-
on’ equilibrium, and as such, educators need to consider that the quiet, shy student in the
corner of the group may be having an even greater experiential learning moment than that
of an unreflective and energetic ‘doer’ within the group. Of course, this does lead to an
even greater issue of how as educators we are able to tell the difference. Perhaps this
point reinforces the idea that experiential education, rather than experiential learning,
needs a social context to promote greater learning in the form of a public debrief (Joplin,
1995), and to ensure such interactions can differentiate these different learning styles.
34
1.4 Experiential Re-Framing of Education
Now that I have examined the value of experience, the ways in which experiential
education uses an action/reflection process for knowledge construction, and the
significance of reflection-in-action, I will consider the potential goals for the theory of
experiential education. Such an approach will be seen as critical in later chapters in which
the value of outdoor education is placed on it as a pedagogical method. Since the
construction of knowledge through experience suggests a transformation or re-framing of
pre-existing knowledge, it naturally creates a potential discrepancy between experiential
education and typical ‘traditional’ education that focuses on ends-objectives of existing
canons of thought and fact. If fact or truth is not given any room for reflection and
potential re-framing, by the definitions of experiential learning the cycle could not be
complete. That is not to say that pre-existing canons of thoughts do not have their place
within experiential education, it does mean, however, that its use must be as a means
rather than an ends. For example, in the sciences one may study the different physical
laws, but in doing so we discover the ‘scientific method’ as one moves from Newtonian
physics to Relativity to Quantum chemistry. Each theory of knowledge requires an
understanding of the previous, not as undeniable facts but rather a process of
comprehension. By doing so, scientists have been able to move further along their
theories based on this experiential re-framing of knowledge. Thus we come to Newton’s
famous phrase “standing on the shoulders of giants”, referring to one’s research
becoming a continuation and constant re-framing of the work of previous researchers.
Here we start to see that the basis for experiential education necessitates the existence of
a community of learners; that is to say, as Dewey would support, education is a social
35
process in which its means is the re-framing and transformation of the very community.
As will now be discussed, this leads in to an examination of the work of Paulo Freire and
Ira Shor and their ideas about the power and potential influence of experiential education
within a social context.
1.4.1 Freire and Praxis
Based on the discussion so far of experiential education, Paulo Freire’s concept of
praxis fits well with its epistemology and pedagogy because he defines praxis as
“reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire, 1970: 51). He
perceives that “in dialectical thought, world and action are intimately interdependent. But
action is human only when it is not merely an occupation but also a preoccupation, that
is, when it is not dichotomized from reflection” (Freire, 1970: 53). Freire frames this
notion within the greater role of education as a liberating power opposed to standard
forms of oppression. As such, he believes that in order for people to shape their reality
they must engage in transformative education, which is based on the very same principles
used in experiential education: action and reflection. Where Freire sees this being
different from ‘traditional’ education is that such a standard or typical system is used to
maintain the status quo in an unequal society, and does so by denying the masses a
reflective education. For him, the reflection in education is the liberating power. From
this, he criticizes institutional schooling as being, in his famous words, a banking concept
of education.
In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and
36
knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence. (Freire, 1970: 72)
This notion of banking education, or the depositing of knowledge in passive learners is
very similar to Dewey’s view on traditional education as a ‘pouring-in’ of knowledge
into ‘empty vessels’ of the students’ minds (Dewey, 1916: 38). Neither scholar believed
that such a system has an empowering element that allows learners to reconstruct and
transform their reality through education. From such a notion, others saw how the
banking concept was/is being used as a form of social control, by denying certain groups
access to the dialogue of reflective thought used by those in power (Macedo, 1994: 16).
Instead of relying on a banking concept, Freire’s lifelong project, along with his
occasional collaborator Ira Shor, was developing a pedagogy that allowed learners to
actively question and inquire about the content and understanding of their
reality/knowledge-base. “Reflection upon situationality is reflection about the very
condition of existence: critical thinking by means of which people discover each other to
be ‘in a situation’” (Freire, 1970: 109). Where this work offers new insight is in terms of
the exact role of the teacher/educator. Two points come out of this: the first is that Freire
believes that the educator must construct knowledge and the curriculum with the learner
and not for the learner (Freire, 1970: 48).
Liberating education is fundamentally a situation where the teacher and the students both have to be learners, both have to be cognitive subjects, in spite of being different. This for me is the first test of liberating education, for teachers and students both to be critical agents in the act of knowing. (Shor & Freire, 1987: 33)
Thus, arises a co-dependency between teacher and learner that is not present in traditional
forms of education. This also links well with Schön’s concept of a reflective practitioner,
37
such as he demonstrates with his example of the architecture studio, where educator and
student co-create their design strategy (Schön, 1987: 41). In the context of experiential
education, this means it has the ability to transform and re-frame the knowledge of not
only the learner, but also that of the educator. However, as Shor has pointed out, this co-
dependency does not invalidate the knowledge that an educator can bring to such a
learning environment:
Formal bodies of knowledge, standard usage, and the teacher’s academic background all belong in critical classrooms. As long as existing knowledge is not presented as facts and doctrines to be absorbed without question, as long as existing bodies of knowledge are critiqued and balanced from a multicultural perspective, and as long as the students’ own themes and idioms are valued along with standard usage, existing canons are part of critical education. (Shor, 1992: 35)
The second point derived from Freire’s work is that it is necessary for the
educator to truthfully believe in the learner’s ability to construct knowledge through a
process of action and reflection, and not simply fall back on a banking concept of
education; that is to say, an educator must trust in the ability of the student.
To achieve this praxis, however, it is necessary to trust in the oppressed and in their ability to reason. Whoever lacks this trust will fail to initiate (or will abandon) dialogue, reflection, and communication, and will fall into using slogans, communiqués, monologues, and instructions. Superficial conversions to the cause of liberation carry this danger. (Freire, 1970: 66)
Thus, for an educator to successfully use the theory of experiential education as pedagogy
in a social context as Freire defines, they must consider and respect the values and
reasoning that learners bring to the conversation and teaching environment. This leads to
what Shor calls ‘empowering education’, where “empowered students make meaning and
act from reflection, instead of memorizing facts and values handed to them” (Shor, 1992:
12). Thus, for Shor empowering education “is a critical-democratic pedagogy for self and
38
social change” (Shor, 1992: 15). From this discussion, it is now possible to understand
experiential education not only as a construct of the learner’s physical environment and
task, but also in terms of its potential to re-frame social interactions for that learner. This
helps us define a key difference between experiential learning, which is done through an
individual and their relation to their environment, and that of experiential education,
which involves a social context that places the need to define the roles of both the leaner
and the teacher. Before I do this, however, further examination of the learning
environment / teaching themes will be needed to complete this discussion.
1.4.2 Shor and Thematic Teaching
What results from Shor’s previous arguments is that pre-existing knowledge of
the instructor has its place, but that it must provide an empowering education through
reflective practices that incorporate the learner in the total process. From this, Shor
outlines three ‘themes’ that may be used to do so, and as a result has a similar reasoning
to how they contribute to experiential education. He describes these themes (Shor, 1992:
55) as: generative, or curriculum created by the interests of the learners; topical, or
curriculum created by the instructor that has embedded social questions important to the
learners; and academic, or curriculum that must be carefully constructed by the instructor
because it is not generated by student-speech or living conditions but still has the ability
to contribute to their learning environment. Shor distinguishes these three themes as a
means to ensure that the educator is aware of how pre-existing cannons of thought are
brought into a learning environment. That is to say, caution must be taken if content is
39
brought in that is not generated by the student’s reality, but that such ‘academic’
discussions still hold importance and should not be abandoned.
Once again, the emphasis for Shor is on how the educator can shape experience
into an educational form relevant to the learner. It is not the fact that, by way of an
example, educators attempt to teach students about chemistry, as this would fall under
Shor’s academic theme or possible topical theme, but the manner in which it is done. If
the topic of chemistry is not taught in a way to give ‘backtalk’ to the students’ living
environments then we risk teaching an ends-objective curriculum focused on the banking
concept of knowledge. However, if the educator is open-minded and reflective to the
living dialogue generated by the students that brings into question the value of chemistry
then an experiential framework may evolve. Perhaps this may be why some teachers
often find public-school students so interested in environmental chemistry, where they
can reflect on the academic concepts of the science but then apply them to their own
living circumstances. This empowering of student action for the environment allows them
to generate their own backtalk to ‘established’ scientific theories.
1.4.3 The Synergy between Action and Reflection
One final aspect of Freire’s work needs to be discussed to frame this dialogue of
empowering education and social reform within the realm of experiential education.
While discussing ‘the word’, Freire examines how both dialogue (the word) and
education have the power to transform reality. Once again we see the critical emphasis
between action and reflection:
Within the word we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed – even in part – the other
40
immediately suffers… When a word is deprived of its dimension of action, reflection automatically suffers as well; and the word is changed into idle chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating ‘blah’… On the other hand, if action is emphasized exclusively, to the detriment of reflection, the word is converted into activism. The latter – action for action’s sake – negates the true praxis and makes dialogue impossible. (Freire, 1970: 87)
From this, not only do we need to consider the relation between action and reflection, but
also the implications when either one is absent (as Freire suggests) in experiential
education. For example, here we can now consider the primary difference between
various protest groups or individuals; are they actively attempting to create a dialogue of
social change for their cause, or are they simply ‘raging against the machine’ to oppose
the dominant power structure and therefore not effective use action. In Freire’s view,
these individuals must be willing to reflect on the backtalk generated by their own social
position if they wish their actions to become anything more than unproductive activism.
It may be plausible that this is what has occurred when individuals have criticized
various practices of experiential education as being only ‘fun hands-on activities’ lacking
academic rigor (an issue also addressed in section 1.2 with Dewey’s notion of some
experiences being mis-educative). This may be a perfect example of what happens when
action and reflection are not properly balanced in the practice of experiential education;
what individuals may believe is experiential education, may be nothing more than
activism. Again, here we see the need of reflection being integrated with action as being a
critical element in order to avoid, as Freire states, activism. Thus, true experiential
education must involve a theory such as Kolb’s integrated loop of experiential learning in
order to achieve Freire’s notion of a liberating education.
41
1.5 The Role of the Teacher in Experiential Education
Following on this careful examination of the key ideologies that have shaped the
evolution of the theory of experiential education, I want to further discuss in more detail
one last point that could be considered of greatest importance to this discussion: the role
of the teacher. Before linking this issue to the theories of the previously discussed
philosophers and educators, I will first describe a ‘typical’ perspective of experiential
education used by its critics to attempt to dismantle its arguments. More importantly, this
view is often truthfully based on observations of practicing experiential, or even
progressive, educators who are incorrectly modeling such pedagogy according to how it
has been defined through the previous discussions. These teachers see and acknowledge
the importance of the learner constructing their knowledge through experience, typically
being in the form of active, engaging action, and presumably reflection. From this, a
conclusion may start to develop that if a teacher interferes or attempts to guide the
educative experience that they are naturally invalidating the student’s authentic
experiential learning cycle. It can be argued that this event has led to many educators
eventually abandoning experiential education, because they set up an experience, students
‘construct’ their own conclusions through action and (possibly) reflection, and then the
teacher is disappointed that many students ‘got it wrong’. Here, the teacher has assumed
that experiential education is exclusively constructed in a social group, void of any
existing expertise (in the form of teacher knowledge) and yet somehow all students
would ‘magically’ discover an ends-objective through a means-approach pedagogy.
The potential fault here lies in a falsehood that the educator has ‘no right’ or ‘no
place’ contributing to the student’s experiential learning. However, if we consider that
42
experiential education represents a learning cycle that involves the re-framing of a social
context, then it would be wrong to assume that the teacher should not be part of such a
setting. It is important, however, that the educator does not attempt to control the learning
through authoritative dialogue or banking concepts of information assimilation. Instead,
when the educator works together with students as a co-learner, their greater knowledge
base may be the key to making the experience educative rather than un- or mis-educative.
What becomes interesting to note is that this theme of the teacher’s role, although
still possibly incorrectly constructed by many educators, has been argued and resolved in
detail by most of the experiential education founders (as will now be cited and
discussed). Eliminating the crucial role of the teacher perhaps may be one of the most
significant reasons that experiential education has often met with failure in the traditional
education system. To reinforce the role of the teacher in experiential education, we only
need to look at what Dewey, Schön, Shor and Freire have said on the issue:
Basing education upon personal experience may mean more multiplied and more intimate contacts between the mature and the immature than ever existed in the traditional school, and consequently more, rather than less, guidance by others. (Dewey, 1938: 8)
Dewey goes on to state that:
Since freedom resides in the operations of intelligent observation and judgment by which a purpose is developed, guidance given by the teacher to the exercise of the pupils’ intelligence is an aid to freedom, not a restriction upon it. Sometimes teachers seem to be afraid even to make suggestions to the members of a group as to what they should do… It is impossible to understand why a suggestion from one who has a larger experience and a wider horizon should not be at least as valid as a suggestion arising from some more or less accidental source. (Dewey, 1938: 84)
Schön summarized his views on the role of the teacher (coach) as follows:
43
Whatever the coach may choose to say, it is important that he say it, for the most part, in the context of the student’s doing. He must talk to the student while she is in the midst of a task (and perhaps stuck in it), or is about to begin a new task, or thinks back on a task she has just completed, or rehearses in imagination a task she may perform in the future. (Schön, 1987: 102)
Likewise, Shor saw the teacher as “the person who mediates the relationship between
outside authorities, formal knowledge, and individual students in the classroom” (Shor,
1992: 13). He goes on to argue that conversation between teacher and student must be
mutually inclusive but directed:
Codeveloped by the teacher and the students, dialogue is neither a freewheeling conversation nor a teacher-dominated exchange. Balancing the teacher’s authority and the student’s input is the key to making the process both critical and democratic. (Shor, 1992: 85)
Finally, Freire argues that such an exchange may appear paradoxical but is necessary for
success:
Freedom needs authority to become free. It is a paradox but it is true. The question nevertheless is for authority to know that it has its foundation in the freedom of the others. (dialogue of Freire from; Shor & Freire, 1987: 91)
Thus, in terms of experiential education being a social structure as a learning
environment, it is also one where the educator must take on the role of facilitator. That is
to say, the educator, with more knowledge and experience than the learners, has an active
role and responsibility to construct the learning experience to meet the needs of the
learners as understood by the learners. This is not done as a passive observer but rather
one that shares the dialogue of the learning moment and provides a voice not of authority
but of reflection for the students.
In using theories such as experiential education or progressivism, it is possible to
suggest that educators have often come to ‘fear’ directing student action because they feel
44
that this interaction in some way would invalidate the student’s intellectual growth and
personal experience. Instead, experiential education can be seen to examine a student-
centered approach by utilizing experience as a foundation for developing knowledge and
reasoning. Therefore, we could suggest that educators who feel they should not interfere
with a student’s experience are practicing a student-directed rather than student-centered
philosophy. For example, this can often be seen in classes that use ‘free-form’ lab
experiments in which a teacher wishes to demonstrate a particular observation used in a
science subject. The teacher creates a mini-lab experiment that is open-ended yet with a
predefined outcome that he/she wishes the students to discover which is not revealed to
the student for fear of ‘interfering’ with the student’s discovery and reflection process.
However, often at the completion of such an experiment, the educator is disappointed that
many did not ‘discover’ the answer or, even worse, created false assumptions based on
the experience. Without a teacher-led reflection stage of the learning, this is a student-
directed scenario and does not fall under experiential education pedagogy. In this case,
the teacher’s guidance is required in the initial design and final reflection / conclusion
stage. It is fine to have students deviate from the expected outcome, but if the educator
was not willing to direct student learning and guide it through reflection, than the
experience loses its educational value. Christian Itin describes how work from Paulo
Freire and Ira Shor helps to understand this problem:
A critical piece that Shor brings to this discussion is an acknowledgement that the teacher shares power with the students and responsibility for the curriculum yet does not abdicate their responsibility and authority for the curriculum; the teacher remains purposeful in the process. Of importance in Shor’s conceptualization is that neither the teacher nor the students dominate the process… Shor has suggested that empowerment-based education should be seen as student-centered, but not necessarily student-directed. (Itin, 1999)
45
Therefore, to understand effective experiential education, one must view the role
of the educator as that of a facilitator that guides students’ experiences through to
reflection and abstraction (the re-framing of knowledge based on reflective experience).
Otherwise, the value of the learning experience is lost, and can not be defined as
experiential education.
46
1.6 Application of Experiential Education
With such a solid foundation for the epistemology (in terms of acquiring
knowledge) and pedagogy of experiential education, it raises the issue of practical
implementation. When one considers applying this educational approach, it is worthwhile
to remember that it is often more difficult and challenging to structure experiential
education in practice than traditional education (as will surface as a recurring theme
throughout later chapters of this thesis). Yet, it could be argued that this is due to where
the current educational system is framed predominately within a traditional mindset of
curriculum delivery. If public education was successfully re-framed into a vision of
experiential education than perhaps some of the limiters may no longer be present. As
such with the current system, it is often limiting factors and traits of the educator as
facilitator developed within the existing educational system rather than a flaw in the
theory of experiential education that creates un- or mis-educative experiences. I would
like to conclude this chapter with two strong examples that demonstrate how with the
right conditions and proper facilitation, experiential education can offer all that it
promises.
The first case is that of the Highlander Folk School (Glen, 1988; Jacobs, 2003) in
Monteagle, Tennessee. Myles Horton founded Highlander in 1932 with the intent of
professional development for community leaders to return to their respective
communities with skills to bring about social change. As such, Highlander became very
influential in the southern United States during the Labor Movement (labor union
formation) and the later Civil Rights Movement. The belief at the school was that
education was needed for leaders to understand the context of their social position and
47
struggle in order to advance beyond it. Because of this stance, workshops constructed at
Highlander were conducted, in the tradition of Freire, through consultation with the target
group. No pre-existing curriculum was used; instead instructors co-developed thematic
conversations with the participants that held relevance to their daily issues. By doing so,
not only did participants discover and reflect on the limitations of their current situations,
Highlander also provided guidance for these leaders to advance their own causes for
social change. As such, even as influential as the school was during the labor and civil
rights movements, it was never a leader itself; instead it simply provided educational
guidance so that leaders could actively re-frame and then change their social reality. No
better example can be found than the fact that just months before Rosa Park’s famous
refusal to obey public transit segregation, she participated at a Highlander workshop
discussing how to understand and transform her social context. Early on during this
workshop, she was even recorded as stating that she did not feel one person alone could
have the power to transform socially forced roles or to re-frame cultural expectations, yet
she still willingly engaged in this praxis.
The second case is that of Foxfire (Wigginton, 1991). Eliot Wigginton started his
teaching career in Rabun County, in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, in 1966.
Very early on, Wigg, as his students quickly came to call him, had a group of students
start a local school newspaper, which they named ‘Foxfire’. What was important from the
outset was that Wigg engaged the students as co-creators of the project; they had
complete input into the paper’s content, and would be responsible for everything from
interviewing to typesetting and production (with Wigg offering his support and
knowledge whenever required). Through Foxfire, students took it upon themselves to re-
48
frame their social knowledge by their vast work of interviewing the elders of the area,
and profiling their different lifestyles and crafts. Over the years, what resulted was an
extremely successful project that received national recognition. Even as Foxfire grew,
Wigg ensured that students maintained a leadership role even in the growth of the
program. As voiced from many student accounts (Wigginton, 1991: 271), Foxfire became
the most transformative experience within the public school system for them.
What is interesting to note about Foxfire was that, in later years, outreach
programs were established that allowed Wigg’s students to mentor other groups of
students trying to establish similar experiential writing programs at their schools
(Wigginton, 1991: 242). Though many were successful and lasted a number of years,
none have had the same staying power as Foxfire. This point reinforces the critical aspect
of what the educator brings to the educational environment in terms of personal
experience and group-reflective processes, and the need to re-frame events in terms of the
student’s immediate social context. This also reinforces that experiential education does
not have a procedural ‘cookie cutter’ template that can be simply superimposed over
various learners in different environments. Re-framing experiential education means that
educators must not only believe in what they teach, but that they must also follow the
same pedagogy for themselves in developing such projects.
One additional note must be addressed for the Foxfire example: later in
Wigginton’s career he was found and convicted of inappropriate relations with his
students. Certainly as a teacher he had abused his power relations and engaged in morally
unacceptable behavior, yet this action of one man does not necessarily invalidate the
success of experiential education. Instead, we need to consider that “basing education
49
upon personal experience may mean more multiplied and more intimate contacts between
the mature and the immature than ever existed in the traditional school” (Dewey, 1938:
8). This can suggest, as seen in Foxfire, that experiential education can generate an
environment not only of profound student success but also one in which clearly the role
of the teacher must not be abused in this more open, and perhaps more vulnerable,
setting. However, in terms of structure and approach Foxfire still remains an excellent
case study for how experiential education can be successfully integrated into the public
school system.
50
Chapter 2 – Outdoor Education
In Chapter One, we examined many elements of experiential education that have
strong pedagogical value and, as such, a place in our public school system. In this
chapter, we will now examine how outdoor education, in a broad and general way,
operates. By considering the structure of outdoor education this will reveal many aspects
of its field of study as curriculum. In later chapters these curricular elements will be re-
examined in how they might be able to operate in a public school setting.
2.1 The Scope of Outdoor Education
In order to understand the role of outdoor education in the context of personal
development, social dynamics, and general education, first we must be very clear about
its definition. Of importance, outdoor education must be understood as something
different than outdoor recreation, although it does incorporate the latter. When I speak of
recreation, for this discussion I am referring to the practice of ‘skills training’. In
particular, the skills of outdoor recreation can be defined as the training practices by
which proficiency is gained through repetition. Examples include various things such as
paddling strokes learnt in sea kayaking or constructing knots and belay devices in rock-
climbing. Though teaching these technical skills may take a significant amount of
training and time, typically they do not utilize any significant educational processes
beyond the end goal of said training. Students are taught what round peg fits into what
round hole. Here the emphasis is a technical mastery in order to achieve or participate in
51
a particular outdoor pursuit. Such a model may be used to integrate outdoor recreation
into a physical education class, but this is not what is meant by outdoor education.
Outdoor education differs from outdoor recreation because of its fundamental
focus on providing opportunities for students to develop reason (Crosby, 1981). Yet
outdoor education also uses the same physical environment as its medium for learning,
which is often associated with outdoor recreation. Therefore, at least on the surface, the
two may appear similar; for instance outdoor education may use rope work from rock-
climbing programs. However, unlike strictly teaching the technical skills, outdoor
education will use this environment to develop reason and a growth in personal
development and social relations. For instance, in the case of the rock climbing example
the use of a belay spotter may not only be for the technical safety aspect of the skill but
also used to nurture the sense of co-dependency among members of a team as a means to
strengthen group dynamics. Another clear example can be seen in the classic use of the
obstacle wall activity, frequently utilized in outdoor education programs; a group of
students may be presented with one of the many challenges of moving the whole group
over an eight foot high wall without breaking their human link. Here, the skills of
scrambling over the wall are not the issue, but rather how students will think through and
design solutions in order to overcome the challenge presented to them, and in the process
how they will come to trust each other and work together. Therefore, the actual physical
outdoor environment is considered important in how it can be used to develop reason in
students (Leroy, 1983). By doing so, the notion of accumulated factual knowledge (i.e.
the skills of scrambling over the obstacle wall) being the same faculty as reasoning (i.e.
working through a problem to discover a novel solution) has been deconstructed for them
52
in a meaningful way (Prochazka, 1995), and provides them a concrete lived-experience
that distinguishes the two. In addition, group dynamics are often, if not always,
incorporated in this practice and done in a manner that differs from the traditional
classroom setting (Kerr & Gass, 1987). Here, success of a particular challenge requires
the combined work and efforts of all those on a team. In order for the group to
successfully manage the obstacle wall, or to navigate to an end goal, all members of the
team must complete the task. Therefore, we may consider outdoor education as a process
of training through rather than for a specific knowledge base (Miner, 1990: 60).
With this emphasis on higher order thinking, outdoor education offers a context
for practical implementation of experiential education philosophy. The field of outdoor
education has also been linked with adventure education and environmental education but
it is important to understand how these fields are related and distinct. Essentially, outdoor
education involves learning through the medium of the wilderness, and as such it has
been suggested that it encompasses the two separate fields of adventure and
environmental education. Simon Priest (1990) defined environmental education as being
concerned with two relationships: ecosystemic (interdependence of living organisms in
an ecological microclimate) and ekistic (relation between human society and natural
resources), while adventure education is concerned with two other relationships:
interpersonal and intrapersonal. In adventure education, the wilderness setting is used as a
framework for an educational environment that can allow learners to redefine their social
roles and thus critically examine and understand their self and their interdependency on
others. As such, this presents similarities to the social framework of experiential
education presented in the first chapter of this thesis.
53
The term adventure education is often used interchangeably with outdoor
education and it can be argued so for a number of reasons: it has had a longer history than
environmental education, it was a foundation position for the overall scope of outdoor
education, and it is much closer aligned with experiential education than environmental
education by the nature and focus on group and personal development (all of which will
be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter). This is not to say that environmental
education does not, or cannot, use an experiential framework; but the core emphasis of
adventure education centers on this epistemology of experiential education. As such,
where many of the researchers and practitioners in this field may blend terminologies,
when this thesis refers to outdoor education, technically it refers to adventure education;
though the term outdoor education will still be used in this thesis as it is the predominate
definition used within the literature even when speaking of adventure education.
Another point of interest when examining these often interrelated fields within
outdoor education is that one can easily observe the current and rapid rise of
environmental education within this field over the last few decades. Even though a
correlation can be made with society’s current emphasis on environmental awareness and
sustainability, it is interesting to notice how this field aligns more closely with Schön’s
notion of technical rationality (Argyris & Schön, 1974), which will be discussed in more
detail in Chapter Three. Thus it could be possible to view environmental education as
assisting in ‘justifying’ outdoor education within mainstream education by moving away
from the teaching skill set of personal development often (but not always) to the technical
skill set of environmental science.
54
2.2 Early Foundations of Outdoor Education
In order to understand the synergy between experiential and outdoor education,
we will need to examine the evolution of outdoor education practices and some of the
underlying principles behind this pedagogy, before considering the limitations and
potential errors that have been propagated through its current approach. In this section, I
will discuss how the genesis of outdoor education was not a means to regaining some
form of wilderness readiness or preparation that may have been lost with the
advancement of technological society but rather a conscious call to address the needs of
that society. Outdoor education modeled its learning environment in a way to enhance
personal and interpersonal attributes that were seen to be in a decline within ‘modern’
society. Thus, from the very start, it was thought that outdoor education was derived from
needs outside its actual operation; emphasizing its importance as a collective sum of
social experiences for its learners and that this could, and would, be reintegrated into their
day-to-day living.
2.2.1 The Moral Equivalent to War
When establishing the origins of outdoor education it is important, if not critical,
to review the work of one of the key founders of this field, Kurt Hahn. However, in order
to understand his position, we first need to set the context with William James’ article,
The Moral Equivalent to War (1910). In this article, James described a social dilemma of
his time: even though there are many evils associated with war, there is an inherent
character-building element that, in terms of both the individual and the group, has strong
55
value in our society. This has often been described as the ‘bond of brotherhood’ that war
produces: the reliance and support given to your fellow comrades in times of need.
The virtues that prevail, it must be noted, are virtues anyhow, superiorities that count in peaceful as well as in military competition; but the strain on them, being infinitely intenser in the latter case, makes war infinitely more searching as a trial. (James, 1910: 355)
From this position, James saw the importance of a substitution, or moral equivalent, to
war as a way of maintaining the positive values of strong character while eliminating the
atrocities of the war-act. He believed that in some way our society must find a solution
for the character-building of our youth if our society is going to remain strong in virtue.
While James applauds the military virtues, he abhors the use of war to teach these virtues. Risk-taking is admired by James, but the use of war to encourage risk-taking is not admired. What is needed, says James, is a substitute for war that will bring out the desired virtues. The substitute James proposes is impelling young people into adventurous situations, utilizing nature as the medium. (Hunt, 1990a: 121) From this, it is possible to see how the outdoor wilderness environment could be
considered a replacement for war as an arduous practice. Individuals have the potential to
excel based on overcoming great obstacles, but doing so within the wilderness framework
does not require the opposition of another individual in a violent conflict. Wilderness as
opposition allows an individual to ‘win’ or succeed while producing no ‘loser’ within
another through challenge and defeat. Therefore, one key pillar to the concept of outdoor
education is its ability to provide this moral equivalent to war, and thus expose youth to
more arduous character-building opportunities than what their society can typically
provide.
56
2.2.2 Kurt Hahn and the creation of Outward Bound
The challenge proposed by James was taken up by Kurt Hahn, an important figure
in the infancy stage of outdoor education. A man of relentless action and commitment,
Hahn has left little in terms of personal literature, even though his role in England has
been arguably as important to outdoor education as Dewey was for public schooling.
Fortunately, many writers, researchers, and practitioners continue to profile his work (for
examples see: Richards, 1990; James, 1995a, 1995b).
In Germany in 1920, Hahn formed a boarding school called Salem Schule (Peace
School), before being imprisoned for his statements against the Nazi indoctrination of
youth. After his release, he opened the Gordonstoun School in the UK in 1934 where he
continued his work with youth, and later he continued his work with the United World
Colleges. Through the principles of hardship and challenge, as expressed by the work of
James, Hahn sought to strengthen the moral character of his students. This stemmed from
observing how the urbanization of youth had left them with little room to face personal
challenge and to grow from such experiences. Hahn felt urban students did not grow
because there were few opportunities to make critical decisions during times of stress,
thus they relied on following established means and authority rather than personal
leadership. A great deal of work has examined the transformative nature of experience as
‘character-building’ (Heath, 1978). Hahn’s methodology centered on engaging youth,
where the central premise was to re-frame the existing social roles of these students under
his care by providing growth through challenging opportunity. From this, certain ‘all-
rounder’ programs developed with his guidance, such as the Duke of Edinburgh Award
and the creation of Outward Bound.
57
Outward Bound was one of the first organizations to use outdoor education as a
medium for the personal development of youth (Miner, 1990). Ironically, the formation
of Outward Bound in 1941 had its roots in naval war (James, 1995b: 40; Miner, 1990:
59). Interestingly, not only was the name Outward Bound derived from a nautical term,
but the high ropes course, now a staple for many outdoor education programs, was
originally designed to mimic mast and sail work in poor seafaring conditions and the
activity ‘the wall’ mimicked the side of a ship, even though today few make this
historical connection. It was discovered during this time that when torpedoed ships went
down, a disproportionately large number of the surviving sailors were sail-trained ‘old
timers’. The fact that there were greater fatalities among the younger sailors despite their
generally better physical condition, indicated to Hahn that something was missing from
the current training and education of the country’s youth (James, 1995a). From this Hahn,
along with his colleague Lawrence Holt, established the principles of Outward Bound:
Holt’s prepositional distinction – training through rather than for – was always to be the essence of the Outward Bound dynamic. Life-enhancing experience is obtained through the sea, the mountains, the wild lake country, the desert. Outward Bound has evolved since those early Aberdovey days. But it has not departed from Hahn’s and Holt’s essential concept of an intense experience surmounting challenges in a natural setting, through which the individual builds his sense of self-worth, the group comes to a heightened awareness of human interdependence, and all grow in concern for those in danger and in need. (Miner, 1990: 60)
Thus, even though the earliest associations were with nautical skills, Hahn saw that
outdoor education could encompass many more varied learning environments to meet the
needs of its youth. From this origin, Outward Bound has grown into an international
program that is a key player in outdoor and experiential education in such countries as
Canada, the United States, Germany, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. In this origin
58
of outdoor education, Hahn created a learning environment that firmly centered on
intense experience and challenge enhancing personal development and growth as its
cornerstone.
2.2.3 The Growth of Outdoor Education Programs
As Outward Bound continued to grow and expand, so did outdoor education in
general and other organizations developed. One such organization is the non-profit
National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) (Bachert, 1990). The program was founded
in 1965 by Paul Petzolt, a seasoned adventurer who, among many other things, was an
instructor at the Colorado Outward Bound School (COBS). Petzolt was interested in
establishing a leadership training program in the realm of outdoor education that focused
on three key points or criteria: 1) expose the participants to challenges inherent in a
wilderness experience; 2) that quality instructors would meet his standards as outdoor
leaders; and 3) the program would meet the interests of those Outward Bound graduates
who wanted to progress to greater levels of outdoor skill (Bachert, 1990: 85). From this
came “an explicit and unique claim of Petzolt and NOLS curriculum is that judgment is a
basic element in the foundation of a competent and safe outdoor leader, and NOLS
attempts to teach it” (Bachert, 1990: 87). In a NOLS course, regardless of its length or
type, there are considered six key curricular components, or learning objectives, that are
met: communication skills, leadership skills, small group behavior, judgment in the
outdoors, outdoor skills, and environmental awareness (Paisley, et al, 2008).
As recognition of Outward Bound grew, so did the question of transferring its
curriculum, which runs in concentrated multi-week programs, to the structure and
59
timetable of the public school system. To achieve this objective, an offshoot of Outward
Bound developed in 1971, now called Project Adventure (Prouty, 1990). Since then,
Project Adventure has expanded to include curriculum design for other institutions,
particularly therapeutic counseling and corporate training.
Another organization worth mentioning is WEA, or the Wilderness Education
Association (Lupton, 1990). In 1977, Petzolt assisted Frank Lupton to create the
organization. Similar to other organizations, WEA’s main purpose was “to improve the
quality of the wilderness and wilderness experience through education of users and the
certification of outdoor leaders” (Lupton, 1990: 91).
However, no discussions on outdoor organizations can be complete without
mentioning AEE, or the Association of Experiential Education (Garvey, 1995). As the
name suggests, even though a large portion of its membership is involved in outdoor
education, its emphasis is on experiential education, and by examining its publications
one can see how closely linked these two fields study actually are. Since its creation in
1977, AEE has regularly published the Journal of Experiential Education, in addition to
numerous books on many aspects of outdoor and experiential education. Currently, AEE
can be considered the strongest organization in North America for bringing together both
theoreticians and practitioners in this field: for example practitioners such as Willy
Unsoeld (in the past), philosophers such as Jasper Hunt, and behavioral psychologists
such as Michael Gass and Simon Priest all come together to share their respective works.
Just as experiential education requires the interplay of action with reflection, AEE
provides its members with the much needed macro-reflection of a field based mostly in
practice, thus creating an experiential learning environment for the study of experiential
60
education. The evolution of AEE has indicated how, as the field of outdoor education has
matured, the need has increased to develop a theoretical understanding behind the
practices in order to advance and enhance it as a mainstay curriculum.
61
2.3 The Relation between Experiential Learning and Outdoor Education
The organizations described in the previous section can be seen as the outward
manifestations of the deeper relationship between the theory of experiential education
and the practice of outdoor education. It has been argued that maintaining an emphasis on
underlying theoretical positions in a practice-rich environment such as outdoor education
is important in order to maintain field growth (Baldwin, et al, 2004). By the 1980s many
were starting to question the lack of theoretical framework for outdoor education
practice, as Wurdinger stated, “I began to wonder whether we, experiential educators,
have taken this assumption [that traditional education is theory rich and practice poor] so
much to heart that we have developed a field which is experience rich and theory poor”
(Wurdinger, 1990). Philosophers in this field linked practices such as Hahn’s and
Unsoeld’s in outdoor/adventure education to various writers such as Plato, Aristotle,
James, and Dewey (Hunt, 1990a). More recently, others have started expanding on how
this field can relate to a much broader range of educational theories, such as
constructivism, social constructionism, cultural discourses, and situated learning (Quay,
2003). Richard Kraft has proposed how experiential learning draws from or is supported
by behavioral, social, cognitive, and developmental learning theories as well as the theory
of multiple intelligences and progressivism. For example:
Gardner’s theory [of multiple intelligence] provides a solid research rationale for the wide variety of bodily-kinesthetic activities used in adventure programs, and for the wide range of intrapersonal and interpersonal activities that form such a critical part of the pedagogy for both the therapeutic and nontherapeutic outdoor education programs. (Kraft, 1990: 178) The connection between outdoor education and experiential education theory is
important if one is to understand how the various elements of its practice come together
62
in order to provide an effective learning environment, while at the same time providing
insight into possible elements that do not work and reasons why. I will use a simple but
strong example to prove this point. Outdoor education, although struggling within the
institutional setting of the public school, is continuing to grow elsewhere and includes
more and more client groups. The client groups that currently comprise a large portion of
outdoor educational activities can be broken down as follows: at-risk adolescents
(typically within the correctional facility network); therapy groups (such as social worker
projects on substance abuse); corporate executive training (for leadership management);
and all-women expeditions (for confidence-building and sometimes dealing with abuse
issues) (Priest & Gass, 2005: xi). This does not include the client base for outdoor
recreation, which is program activity without reflective education, but rather skills-based
training for the ‘weekend warrior’, such as climbing or kayaking courses. Based on the
client groups outlined by Priest and Gass, it can be asked what such groups have in
common that they use an outdoor education environment. In reflecting on theory already
discussed, we see that each client group has a powerful need to re-frame their
understanding of their existing social constructs. Experiential education, through the
theories of Freire (1970) and Shor (1992), deals with empowering education and how
individuals can reconstruct their realities. As we link theory to practice, both benefit –
praxis in its essence.
63
2.4 Critical Elements for Outdoor Education
An immediate and valid argument to the above example, however, is that this
might describe the importance of experiential education for these client groups, but it still
does not completely link this to outdoor education. The point here is that if we are to
consider this field as praxis – an action and reflection in order to transform reality – we
must look at the synergy between experiential and outdoor education. In other words, at
this stage we now need to consider how outdoor education practice contributes to
experiential theory; as it must be a two-way dynamic. What are the factors in outdoor
education that potentially make it a unique learning environment and enhances the
learning retention of its students in the form of experiential education? To answer this
question, we will now examine such key elements as the social and physical learning
environment, flow state, and the concept of risk. This will naturally lead to the
consideration of some ethical issues that rise out of outdoor education practices that are
not typically of consideration in mainstream schooling. I will then consider how the idea
of transference and metaphor mean that outdoor education has a substantial place in
public education.
2.4.1 The Socially and Physically Unfamiliar Environment
When considering why outdoor education is perhaps one of the best mediums for
the implementation of the theory of experiential education, we must consider its setting as
a physically and socially unfamiliar environment.
Placing participants into an unfamiliar learning environment can foster a variety of beneficial dynamics. Such environments are valuable because they starkly contrast to the learners’ familiar environments, allowing participants to see old behavior patterns in a new light with a richer
64
perspective as well as to notice behavior patterns that they may have overlooked in familiar settings. Unfamiliar physical environments may also allow participants to ‘try on’ new behaviors in an environment that does not encompass some of the limitations or fears of familiar settings. Such successful new behaviors may serve as first steps toward integrating behavior changes into more familiar settings. (Priest & Gass, 2005: 20)
By providing a rich, novel environment for learners, outdoor education has the potential
to re-frame their social interactions because there is a basic assumption that pre-
determined social interactions do not have the basis or physical needs present in this new
environment in order to maintain their dependence on existing hierarchies. This concept
not only reinforces Schön’s notion of a surprise, or discrepant event, in order to facilitate
reflection, but also supports Freire’s ideas about how we must encourage individuals to
understand their social position in order to transform it through praxis. Here we see that
by using a socially and physically unfamiliar environment, outdoor education allows
participants to ‘try on’ new identities in a controlled setting and allow them to take hold
for the potential of true social transformation.
While considering the social impact of outdoor education, it must be noted that
there is still some debate on this issue. Some researchers and practitioners see the
personal development of the individual being of paramount importance (Sugerman,
1999), while others see the value in the growth of group dynamics (Garvey, 1999a). Not
to oversimplify such an issue, but one might consider that such an argument only once
again reinforces Dewey’s notion that individual learning is a social (and he would also
argue a democratic) process that cannot be separated from its immediate group. Hence it
is not an either/or dilemma but rather a blend of the two. Thus the learning potential of
the individual is linked and feeds back into the social group from which it originates, and
enables both aspects to grow together.
65
Because of this unfamiliar social learning environment employed in outdoor
education, Priest & Gass (2005: 66) have outlined stages of group development within
this context as proposed and developed by Tuckman and Jensen (1977). Tuckman’s
group development theory predicts stages that a new group of individuals will transition
through in an unfamiliar learning environment, and, as such, is important for the educator
to understand in order to provide the best possible facilitation. These stages are: 1)
forming – deals with the concerns and doubts learners feel in forming a new group, often
referred to as the conforming stage, 2) storming – when learners challenge and question
existing or perceived authority roles within its group, 3) norming – learners re-frame their
social interaction in order to deal with the new social structure of the group, 4)
performing – learners use their new re-framing of the situation to provide mutual support
and interaction for group activities and learning, and finally 5) adjourning – the reflection
of social interactions and anxiety of the group breaking up and how this effects the return
to pre-established social groups. Throughout this process, it has been suggested that the
exact role and leadership style of the facilitator becomes important for successful group
dynamics (Priest & Gass, 2005: 70). In addition, this stage theory was considered to be
dynamic rather than linear, and that based on particular circumstances groups might shift
back in the stages rather than always progressing forward. This model of group theory is
just one of many that may be considered for the examination of team dynamics when
presented with an unfamiliar environment. As such, it is acknowledged that critiques may
be made on the exact nature and order of various stages, and if each stage is even
required prior to another, yet it is presented here only to assist in our understanding of
how group dynamics may change and become interactive with a novel setting.
66
For example, a few years ago I participated in a Wilderness First Responders
course that almost perfectly modeled these stages of group development. As strangers, we
were all initially unsure of what expectations and support we would give to, and receive
from, the other members of the group. Early on in the group conflicts in personalities
arouse as many of us attempted to fit into leadership roles we were accustomed to in our
individual professional working environments. When none of these roles proved
beneficial to the new learning environment of wilderness first aid, eventually the group
started to work together in ways to enhance each member’s strength within the group in
order to achieve tasks. Finally, at the conclusion of the program after ten intensive days,
many of us pondered on our newly acquired first aid skills and their effectiveness once
we were no longer part of the group that knew how to work together in this medium.
Final comments included being unsure of how each of us would be able to effectively use
our first aid skills when presented with situations with other individuals who did not
understand ‘our’ teamwork style.
However, as we consider the pivotal role of any novel wilderness learning
environment, an important note must be made: there is an underlying assumption in
outdoor education that, having been largely developed as an educational tool to ‘combat’
the urbanization of youth, in terms of providing arduous character-building challenges,
learners do not possess a great deal of prior knowledge about this learning environment.
If this was not the case, then outdoor education would not provide a novel and fresh
reflective medium that allows learners to question and grow. As such, an interesting
dilemma may be considered here: the more students become familiar with outdoor
education, the increased likelihood that it will lose its transformative edge. However,
67
once we examine this issue more closely, more complexity arises. The question may now
not simply become a familiarity with a particular environment but rather that of an exact
setting. For example, the use of the wilderness in a first aid course still has the advantage
of being a socially and physically unfamiliar environment even to a veteran hiker and
paramedic provided if that individual never reflectively blended these two areas of his or
her life. Another point could be made concerning the effective use of the unfamiliar
environment; if the goal is to expose students to a transformative experience, the very
nature and design of the activity may be one that does not empower individuals to reflect
on transformative action. As such, any rote activities may actually strengthen conformity
in students that hinder any transformational potential that may have been offered. To
address both these issues (of familiarity and repetition hindering growth), this leads us
into a discussion about flow state, as this relation will now be discussed.
2.4.2 Flow State
To fully understand how an individual can potentially interact within a socially
and physically unfamiliar environment that provides transformative moments for self and
group, it is beneficial to consider Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow state (1975,
1990). Flow is a theory that examines how individuals come to have ‘peak performance’
in learning situations:
Flow describes a state of experience that is engrossing, intrinsically rewarding, and ‘outside the parameters of worry and boredom’… Since what motivated the activity usually seemed not be external rewards but the activity itself, the conclusion was that it was the quality of the subjective experience itself that made the behavior intrinsically rewarding. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990: 150)
68
Alasdair McIntyre discussed the idea of intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards (1984),
and others have applied this notion to outdoor education (Hunt, 1991). McIntyre
discussed the idea of ‘goods internal to practice’ versus ‘goods external to practice’.
Goods internal to practice are things of value that are only available within the practice,
and are inexhaustible; for example, all participants in a particular course can come away
with a new understanding and appreciation of the topic. Goods external to practice are
things of value that have been attached to the practice often as motivators, and more
importantly are limited and objects of competition; all participants in the above example
must compete for the ‘top-grade’ of the course. As such, McIntyre perceived that goods
internal to practice bring benefit to people and community, while goods external tend to
corrupt and distort the internal goods. As such, this can raise the fundamental question of
whether the school is a system built on internal or external goods, and thus whether
students attend school to gain knowledge or to acquire jobs. In terms of outdoor
education, the existence of a social and physical unfamiliar environment, at the very least,
assists in hindering goods external to practice, since most participants are still trying to
simply define their roles within such novel settings.
In terms of flow, this focus on goods internal to practice allows for a greater
interaction between the student and the learning environment because the emphasis is
placed on the actual learning environment and not external goods associated with it as an
ends-product. Csikszentmihalyi has outlined some key characteristics of flow, or peak
performance activities: 1) a person in flow knows what must be done and gets quick
feedback; 2) the flow experience involves a merging of action and awareness (a similar
notion to tacit knowledge proposed by Argyris & Schön, 1974); 3) a centering of
69
attention on a limited stimulus field; 4) intense concentration involves a ‘loss of ego’ or
‘self-forgetfulness’; 5) individuals in flow feel potentially in control of their actions and
of the environment (a similar characteristic of empowering education proposed by Shor,
1992); and 6) flow is autotelic, meaning the desire to repeat activities increases because
of intrinsic rewards (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990: 150).
Although not discussed by Csikszentmihalyi, it would be interesting to consider
whether a group or team could be considered to be in a state of flow. It might require
more than just each individual being in a state of flow, for group dynamics would now be
taken into consideration. However, as Csikszentmihalyi defines flow, with the merging of
action and awareness together with a loss of ego or self-forgetfulness, this may provide a
rich medium for effective team dynamics to manifest.
The concept of flow, or peak-performance activities, has implications for the
learner and outdoor education through the relationship between the opportunity to act and
the capacity to act (Priest & Gass, 2005: 48). Essentially, if an individual has a greater
capacity to act than opportunities provided then boredom results, while if the reverse
situation occurs then anxiety results. Thus if opportunity and capacity are aligned, the
individual then has the potential to enter a state of flow, thus possibly being another
characteristic, or perhaps a prerequisite, that Csikszentmihalyi did not directly address.
This event of opportunities aligning with capacity is not limited to outdoor education as
in almost every classroom educators have students that are either bored with the
curriculum or confused by it. It could be argued that public education may need a greater
focus on the theory of flow in order to understand how to enhance the learning
environment for those students who are either lost or bored with the material. What is
70
interesting to note, however, is that by considering outdoor education as a character-
building learning environment this suggests that this setting naturally attempts to better
align the concept of flow than traditional classrooms by reducing ‘boredom’ through
arduous practice, an issue that was addressed by Hahn.
Within outdoor education, such a theory as peak-performance (as defined by
Priest & Gass, which although incredibly similar to Csikszentmihalyi’s flow state has
never explicitly been connected) has been expanded even further in terms of the learner’s
perceived versus actual abilities (Priest & Gass, 2005: 50). If a student has a lower
perceived competence than actual, then that individual may engage in activities that do
not push their limits, and thus do not achieve peak performance. Likewise, if competence
is perceived higher than actual, then the learner might take on too much and failure
results. Essentially, what is examined here is how self-perception may hinder peak
performance if it does not truthfully align with ability (whether realized or not on the part
of the learner). As a result, the role of the educator/facilitator is critical: some individuals
must be presented with experiences that challenge, or modify, what they perceive they
can do in order to achieve success and growth. Likewise, the educator must establish
experiences that allow overconfident learners to re-frame their actual skill levels in order
to grow from their newly realized limitations and learning opportunities. Doing so must
involve the educator setting up experiences that match learner’s abilities while not
necessarily matching their self-perception. As long as the student engages in such an
activity, this provides a reflective learning moment that allows them to redefine their
potential abilities. During this process though, the educator would have an ethical
71
obligation to provide a constructive learning environment that does not jeopardize self-
esteem even when it teaches limits.
2.4.3 Perceived Versus Actual Risk
Since the idea of flow (aligned with peak performance), through ability versus
opportunity, is linked with notions of success and failure of the learning moment, this
leads to an important discussion for outdoor education: the concept of risk. Because
students are brought into a physically and socially unfamiliar environment, there is an
understanding that these learners are placed in a situation of risk because they would not
have certainty about how to act or perform in such novel situations. Certainly, almost
anyone can see how rock-climbing or canoeing has a greater risk associated with it, both
in terms of personal safety and potential equipment loss, than having students sit quietly
in a classroom, passively absorbing lecture material. Experience of any sort, however,
involves some form of risk, whether in the case of equipment loss in canoeing or peer-
judging by correctly answering a question or not in class.
Again, we may consider how Schön’s concept of surprise, or a discrepant event,
as a key element in generating reflective action can now potentially relate to the idea of
risk. Risk inherently implies uncertainty of outcome; this uncertainty may be in terms of
personal safety, but can also be in terms of the success or failure of a particular learning
activity. By using risk/uncertainty, outdoor educators establish learning environments
that generate reflective action with an intrinsically motivated flow state. Here, the
discrepant event provides a learning moment that takes the individual out of rote
behavior. More importantly, it does so by providing an uncertainty; since the individual
72
did not anticipate or perceive the learning moment, it is more likely that they are unsure
of any possible outcome derived from taking action in such a case. Thus the uncertainty
of the moment generates risk in action, or thought, for the individual.
Few would disagree with the assertion that a chief goal of education is to encourage people to think rather than go through life mindlessly. Fundamental to the application of thought to the world is the impossibility of complete certainty of outcome. For if the outcome of thought were completely known in advance, there would be no need for thought at all. Thinking implies taking a risk… Therefore, there is a vital link between education and the risk inherent in the process of thought itself. It is our duty as educators to encourage our students to take the risk of thought. (Hunt, 1990b: 40) In this way, the use of risk now becomes both a physical and psychological tool
that allows outdoor educators to construct a learning environment that maintains flow, or
peak performance, for the learners. Therefore, like the idea of flow, risk has a relation to
perceived competence (Priest & Baillie, 1995). Priest and Baillie describe individuals
with lower perceived competence in terms of risk as being ‘timid and fearful’, and those
with higher perceived competence as being ‘fearless and arrogant’.
Balancing the amount of risk in an adventure experience is a central paradox for outdoor leaders: with too much risk the danger of the experience becomes unreasonable; with too little risk the adventure program fails to remain adventurous. (Priest & Gass, 2005: 92)
In either case, what results when a derivation from peak adventurous activities occurs is
that the learning potential of the moment also suffers. By considering risk within the
frame of a learning moment, the potential of the environment becoming un- or even mis-
educative results, since the risk does not match the competence.
73
2.5 Ethics in Outdoor Education
However, in dealing with risk, this raises many ethical questions about whether
educators have the right to subject students to risk (see Hunt, 1990b: chapter 2 focuses on
risk benefit analysis). Derived from this argument is an important distinction between
perceived versus actual risk. Perceived risk refers to the degree of potential danger that an
individual feels, and may be different than the actual risk involved in a particular activity.
For example, in general, society has a higher perceived risk of commercial flying, yet the
actual risk of automotive driving is greater. Here, individual’s perceptions of the risk of
flying may be higher than that of driving perhaps because they sense a greater chance of a
fatality in an aircraft accident. Yet, research and statistics clearly point to flying as being
less risky, even though this logic often does not shift individual’s idea of the risk. Along
these lines, one widely accepted argument in outdoor education is, that in order to
maintain a high state of flow, there is a need to keep perceived risk high while keeping
actual risk low for practical safety and ethical reasons. Therefore, the use of risk to impel
individuals in learning moments, either in action or reflection, becomes possible in their
perception even though the ethical case of reducing harm is maintained.
This discussion about the ethics of risk opens the door on the wider issue of ethics
in general for outdoor education, which is necessary to address in order to understand the
type of dynamic learning environment that it creates. Four levels of ethical decision
making have been reviewed as part of outdoor education (Gass & Wurdinger, 1993): 1)
intuitive or ‘gut reactions’; 2) ethical rules established by organizations; 3) ethical
principles molded by society; and 4) ethical theory, in which the individual reflects and
balances situations un-resolvable by the previous three levels. The level of ethical
74
decision making at which a particular educator operates reveals a lot about how they
may, or may not, operate as a reflective practitioner in outdoor education. This also
generates a problematic distinction between an individual’s ethical choice and how it
weighs with society’s ethical (moral) view. Therefore, when discussing ethics in outdoor
education, it is important at the very least to be aware of how and at which level
individuals may be ethically operating.
2.5.1 Informed Consent
A significant contributor to the ethical discussions in outdoor education has been
Jasper Hunt (1990b, 1991). He correlates many characteristics of outdoor education, such
as risk, to the greater ethical question of informed consent:
If I am a reasonable person and I am deciding whether a given risky activity is worth the risk and I am not informed about what the risks are then I am incapable of making a truly informed decision. The less information I have, the less I am acting autonomously. The less I’m acting autonomously, the less I act from a state of liberty. Thus, my ignorance becomes a form of slavery. (Hunt, 1990b: 48) Hunt states that when an outdoor educator creates a learning environment, it
necessitates that the learner be informed about the events taking place. Initially, such a
position appears contradictory to the idea of surprise that is used to maintain flow, or
peak adventure. If students are completely informed about the actual risks, then their
perceptions of risk match, and so we have either a dangerous learning environment or one
that creates boredom. However, Hunt addresses such an issue when he includes deception
and secrecy in his argument. He argues that the use of these can be ethically justified in
order to maintain perceived risk, provided that learners give informed consent prior to
their use.
75
It should be clear that the use of deception in experiential education is, at best, a controversial and ethically problematic practice. I think one of the most important distinctions to bear in mind, as a practical matter, is the difference between deception as an aspect of informed consent and deception that has not been consented to… Once again, informed consent can be useful for the discussion of secrecy. It is a rather simple matter to inform students before the fact that secrets may be kept in order to facilitate learning. If experiential education really is fundamentally different from traditional information assimilation education, and if one of these differences lies in the Socratic technique of impelling students into real perplexity, why not simply inform students what these differences are before they begin the experiential process. (Hunt, 1990b: 59, 65)
In this way, we see how educators can potentially maintain an ethically sound learning
environment that is still physically and socially unfamiliar in order to promote reflective
action on the part of the students in a state of flow.
Hunt also discusses many other broad-ranging and important issues such as
sexuality, environmental concerns, individual versus group benefit, student’s rights,
social implications, and paternalism. As such, many educators and researchers consider
his work to be seminal in the field of ethics in outdoor education. At this stage though,
the key points of actual and perceived risk, and informed consent are the only points that
are brought into the current discussion on how outdoor education is possibly the best case
study for experiential education, and that this in no way diminishes any of these other
important ethical issues within this field of education.
76
2.6 Integration of Outdoor Education Experiences into General Society
Following on this examination of the various key characteristics of outdoor
education, including the effects of its unfamiliar environment, flow state, risk, and some
associated ethical issues, I will now discuss the ways in which such a specialized learning
environment has practical applications for society at large. It could be argued that such a
learning environment, although at least temporarily effective for the reflective
transformation of the student, is now so removed from their actual daily experience that
no real long-term benefits may be derived from it. This is the idea of transference, which
continues to be one of the most researched and debated areas in outdoor education (Hatch
& McCarthy, 2005; Gass, 1995), with both sides still arguing if transference is long
lasting (Garvey, 1999b; Puk, 1999a). Here one must consider whether or not the value of
the learning experience can now be related to the daily lives of the individual, or must it
become an isolated facet of knowledge accessible only in this unique setting. For
example, do the social skills and thought strategies that are developed in such activities as
the obstacle wall remain solely isolated to that exact context of getting everyone over the
wall, or can they be extrapolated and utilized in other settings such as how groups can be
better restructured in corporations to enhance teamwork? Obviously if the reflective
moments of the obstacle wall can only pertain to that exact learning environment, than
the fundamental value of outdoor education as an effective transformative experience,
praxis, must be brought into question. Essentially, this value of outdoor education to the
individual is directly related to the ability to transfer learned skills and behaviors into
other social contexts.
77
In order to establish the linkage between outdoor education and the everyday life
of the individual, the important concept of metaphor needs to be included in this
discussion about transference. In The Conscious Use of Metaphor in Outward Bound,
Stephen Bacon describes how facilitation in outdoor education is linked, or transferred, to
real-life experiences through a model of metaphor, where the outdoor experience shares
elements that exist within the learner’s everyday life.
The key factor in determining whether experiences are metaphoric is the degree of isomorphism between the metaphoric situation and the real-life situation. Isomorphic means having the same structure. When all the major elements in one experience are represented by corresponding elements in another experience, and when the overall structure of the two experiences is highly similar, then the two experiences are metaphors for each other. This does not imply that the corresponding elements are literally identical; rather, they must be symbolically identical. (Bacon, 1983: 4)
As such, he argues that by modeling activities in the outdoors experience, individuals are
able to develop new skill sets that allow them to re-frame their real-life situations:
Effective generalization essentially requires that the course experiences be highly isomorphic with students’ real-life experiences. If they are, and if course activities have provided successful resolutions to formerly unproductive strategies, then there will be positive changes in real life. Isomorphism, new endings to stereotypic strategies, and success experiences are the critical requirements for generalization. (Bacon, 1983: 10)
Thus, by using metaphoric situations, outdoor education allows students a new identity in
a similar related experience. This allows for them to re-frame their roles and generate
reflective solutions that provide for success. This may be done even when the real-life
experience has not been met with success, and thus new pathways to success are
generated. Of course, this can raise the question of whether the student needs to be
consciously aware of how these metaphors are playing out in these situations in order for
successful transference, as will now be discussed.
78
2.6.1 Dressing the Metaphor
Just as Freire spoke of praxis, outdoor education has the potential to reach beyond
the isolated activity to span a much greater social realm. This of course assumes an
effective facilitator/educator, as there are no doubt many examples of poorly constructed
outdoor education experiences that do not contribute, or transfer, to the everyday life of
the student. Therefore, when structuring outdoor experiences, the educator must become
a reflective practitioner and look beyond the activity to relate isomorphic elements to the
student’s lives. To link the isomorphic nature of the two realities, Bacon discusses
‘dressing the metaphor’ whereby cues and descriptions are used to enhance and bridge
the concepts for the learner (Bacon, 1983: 25).
There are three main ways, or approaches, that have been proposed for the
structuring of an effective learning environment using outdoor education: ‘the mountains
speak for themselves’ (MST); the Outward Bound Process (OBP); and the Metaphoric
Model (MM), which models the work of Bacon as discussed above. The MST approach
incorporates the idea that the actual outdoor experience warrants its own educational
value, without the direct interpretations of a facilitator/educator. In contrast, OBP
facilitation is achieved by a framing of active events in the form of a debrief session. Like
OBP, MM uses the debrief but also initially sets the stage for the activity with isomorphic
‘dressing of the metaphor’. Research has been conducted in an attempt to determine
which method is more effective (Doherty, 1995), and additional elements that go beyond
these processes have been proposed (Prochazka, 1995; McKenzie, 2003).
When dealing with the idea of MST, there is the assumption that the only element
necessary for a reflective experience is the experience itself. Such a model counteracts
79
the relationship between action and reflection for which, as previously discussed in
Kolb’s learning cycle of experiential education, the summary reflective debrief is as
critical as the experience itself. In Kolb’s model, MST would represent a lower-order
stage of cognitive development, one that the individual would ideally work beyond.
However, if we assume that reflection is taking place as an internalized process and not
simply structured in terms of a group debriefing, this model now challenges the valid role
of the instructor. As discussed through the works of Dewey, Shor, Schön, and Freire, the
educator has a critical role to guide the students, and thus brings education into the social
context. Therefore, even if the MST model is valid experientially for the individual, it is
inadequate in the educational process as a whole. Thus, MST helps us differentiate
between experiential learning (as internalized reflection and growth) and experiential
education (as externalized reflection in a social context providing a critical role for the
facilitator/educator). Bacon goes so far as to argue that such a position as MST is not
even possible to achieve in any outdoors course:
Instructor cues are the ‘dressings’ of the metaphors – students respond to them as subtle instructions for approaching each activity. As every behavior of the instructor is a cue, it is impossible to teach an un-dressed, purely natural course. The mountains never speak for themselves, nor do the course activities; they are all mediated by the verbal and nonverbal cues of the instructor. (Bacon, 1983: 25)
Similarly, many view the OBP model as not using a ‘pre-dressing’ of an isomorphic
metaphor. However, let us for a moment consider the possibility that this is simply a
misinterpretation of Bacon’s work. Although he addressed that “narratives, anecdotes,
examples, didactic lectures, and testimonials can be important factors in dressing the
Outward Bound metaphors” (Bacon, 1983: 34), he goes on to argue that this does not
necessitate an exclusive Metaphoric Model:
80
There is no doubt that the implicit messages of the course activities can be shaped somewhat by instructor dressing techniques. However, something of whatever is most basic and most fundamental in each activity will come through in spite of the manner in which it is presented. (Bacon, 1983: 51)
Others have noticed this discrepancy and commented on the need to view
metaphor development as a process of the learner rather than descriptors derived from the
instructor. “With a concept of metaphors as participant’s guiding images, experiential
learning can be understood as a process of metaphor change, and the task of experiential
trainers or educators consists primarily of facilitating the development of images that
generate new potential, or ‘generative metaphors’” (Hovelynck, 1998: 6). This coincides
nicely with Shor’s idea that true empowering education must be derived from student
generated dialogue and not instructor driven discourse. Therefore, with these
considerations, successful facilitation of outdoor education must utilize a Metaphoric
Model of teaching in order to become effective at transference to the real-world of the
learners. Based on Bacon’s idea that any instructor’s cue becomes a dressing for
metaphor, arguably the Metaphoric Model becomes the theory-in-use of outdoor
education facilitators even though their espoused theories may be stated as the MST or
the OBP models. What is important to remember here, however, is that Bacon argues for
the conscious use of metaphor, and thus linking experiences to real-life situations does
not become merely accidental.
2.6.2 Rites of Passage
If we acknowledge that outdoor education can have the potential to influence the
everyday world of its students, then we must consider if there are any practical
limitations to this that prevent such a dynamic interchange of realities. Since we have
81
already addressed how (the potential) isomorphism of outdoor education activities bridge
these two realities, the question is now whether or not the everyday world of society has
mechanisms that hinder this process. It has been argued that although outdoor education
may create transformative experiences for its students, our society does not tacitly accept
or acknowledge these events as rites of passage, or as an intrinsically character-
enhancing opportunity for the individual.
Although several outdoor and youth development programs use the rites of passage as coming-of-age rites with students, the students often return to an environment lacking the formal social mechanisms for maintaining change. In fact, research on the rite of passage use in contemporary outdoor programs has not demonstrated the dramatic, positive results its proponents claim. Still, advocates maintain the rite of passage provides an important solution to society’s ills. What a rite of passage can provide is a useful model for teaching and facilitating transformation under specific conditions. A deeper understanding needs to exist for outdoor educators seeking to use rites of passage as a transformational model… The three stage system of social transformation begins when a person becomes ready to make a role change in the community. The initiates move through the following three stages: separation, a stage of transition or liminal phase, and a stage of reincorporation. The rite of passage is a physical and cultural process of role and responsibility change. (Bell, 2003: 42) It has been noted that although rites of passage in outdoor education typically
involve a three stage process of separation, transition, and incorporation, it is often during
the reintegration stage that lead to challenges (Beames, 2004). While outdoor education
creates a praxis that allows students to re-frame their social roles, this work may be
undone when they return to their communities if they resume their previously established
roles. Individuals within their community may still treat them the same as before, and this
encourages these students to return to familiar behaviors. Take for example at-risk
juvenile offenders who have just completed a successfully isomorphic adventure
program. These individuals may feel that they have the skills to move beyond their pasts
82
to become better people, yet when they return to their communities they are still seen as
‘nothing but trouble’. Continual exposure to such attitudes easily creates a self-fulfilling
prophecy and defeat any positive experience gained through a single outdoors program
that could possibly allow for rite of passage transformational model.
Therefore, in this context outdoor education is only truly effective if it can be
maintained over a duration of time, extended and integrated throughout an individual’s
daily life, thus reinforcing the reincorporation stage of this model. This is not to suggest
that an individual can not have a single profoundly transformative moment, but rather
that such isolation makes its impact on the individual more vulnerable to the ongoing
lived experience of that person. Obviously one easy solution to this is to integrate outdoor
education into the public school system. But is this really easy to accomplish? A
multitude of questions can arise of how, if, where, and when outdoor education can be
incorporated into the public school structure. Even greater questions surface of whether
this becomes a benefit to the school system or simply an avenue to promote outdoor
education initiatives. Having explored the background, theories, and history of
experiential and outdoor education, this thesis will now center on and tackle this
important topic: the role, and potential need, of outdoor education in schools.
In Chapter Three, I will review critical discussions about public schooling by
examining the structure of that institution and the reflective role of the educator, and how
these relate and contrast to the field of outdoor education as a means of demonstrating
potential compatibility. From this discussion, I will then in Chapter Four examine key
elements that may suggest not only a medium for bridging outdoor and experiential
education to public schooling, but that outdoor education can contribute to the continued
83
enhancement of public schooling. Once this potential relation between outdoor education
and public schooling has been established, I will then further this discussion by critically
examining the context of outdoor education as curriculum (Chapter Five) and as
pedagogy (Chapter Six), and what this potential duality means to public schooling.
84
Chapter 3 – Contextualizing Outdoor Education Programming
3.1 Structural Relations between Outdoor Education and Public Schooling
Having carefully examined the theory of experiential education and its practice
within the realm of outdoor education, I will now consider the functionality of how this
form of learning can be connected to existing social frameworks. Since it has been
established that effective outdoor education requires continued exposure to its learning
environment in order to promote the transference of learned skills, social interactions, and
cognitive schema (Hatch & McCarthy, 2005; Gass, 1995; Puk, 1999a), one obvious
solution would be the integration of outdoor education into public school programming.
Yet to make this connection is not straightforward. Though public schools could provide
the structural framework to allow for continual exposure to outdoor education, and from
our previous discussion it has been demonstrated that experiential and outdoor education
would have much to offer the public school, we must now consider if these two
educational systems are compatible with one another. In both cases of public schools and
outdoor education, each has a particular role for the educator or teacher and also an
established overall institutional framework. That is to say, if we wish to consider linking
these two systems together we must ask the questions: Are we able to demonstrate that
the outdoor educator and the public school teacher could be one and the same, and also
can the public school system provide the required infrastructure and theoretical
substructure to support and be compatible with an outdoor education program?
In order to advance this discussion, the works of two authors will now be
discussed; Michel Foucault and Donald Schön. By examining Foucault’s theories on
85
power structures we can begin to understand similarities and differences between outdoor
education and public schooling in terms of the institutional structure and service. Then,
by examining Schön’s theories on the reflective practitioner we can suggest similarities
and differences between the outdoor education instructor and that of the classroom
teacher. What I will suggest in this chapter is that this understanding of both the role of
the institution and the facilitator will enable us to consider a bridging of outdoor
education practice within the scope of public schooling that makes sense for the learner,
and as such it can support the idea of compatibility between these two systems.
86
3.2 Foucault – Discipline and Power
Rather than conduct an overview of the almost three hundred articles, interviews,
and books by Foucault (Bernauer & Keenan, 1988: 119), I wish to critically examine one
of his more famous theories – the use of discipline as a mechanism for societal control
(Foucault, 1975). This will be done in order to demonstrate how his notions of discipline
and power can be considered ‘the norm’ for most institutional settings and interactions
today, including the public school system, and I will argue, in a different context but
similar structure within outdoor and experiential education.
Let us begin where Foucault does with an examination of how he perceives
‘relations of power’. Written in 1975, Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison
focuses on the ways in which penal institutions manipulate mechanisms, or relationships,
of power. However, the book also considered the issue to have wider application to any
institutional setting, including the military barracks, hospitals, and schools. Although
many take Foucault’s work simply to represent institutional power, for Foucault power
does not simply represent something an institution has or wields; he viewed power as a
fundamental and unavoidable part of any social interaction.
I hardly ever use the word ‘power’ and if I do sometimes, it is always a short cut to the expression I always use: the relationships of power. But there are ready made patterns: when one speaks of ‘power’, people think immediately of a political structure, a government, a dominant social class, the master facing the slave, and so on. That is not at all what I think when I speak of ‘relationships of power’. I mean that in human relations, whatever they are – whether it be a question of communicating verbally, as we are doing right now, or a question of a love relationship, an institutional or economic relationship – power is always present: I mean the relationships in which one wishes to direct the behavior of another. (Foucault, 1988: 11)
87
This is the way in which Foucault frames social interactions: a power dynamic where one
attempts to direct or control the behavior of another. An interesting point derived from
this is that Foucault sees power relations as variable and unfixed, yet based on a current
situation. For example, a police officer who pulls over an individual for speeding has a
strong degree of power and control over that person, but if that officer was to find out
later that the speeder was his bank manager where he/she was attempting to get a loan
then the power relations would be reversed. This brings forward an important point that
needs to be understood: Foucault saw power as a mechanism that was independent and
uncontrollable by any individual. The police officer as an individual holds no power,
rather the office of the police force exerts the power.
For Foucault, there are no strategists to be identified behind the strategies – no one occupies the place of the Other. Nevertheless, it is in the name of the Other that identities are formed; by questioning the provenance of the forces that control an individual’s life, Foucault calls into question the accepted patterns of individualization. (Racevskis, 1988: 31)
Regardless of the context or individuals involved, Foucault believed that power is
always present in any relationship; therefore the key now is to understand how this power
can be properly characterized.
3.2.1 The Docile Body
From this discussion, Foucault derived a second point when considering power
relations: the ‘docile body’. In order to have a relationship of power (or any relationship
according to Foucault’s ideas), a power dynamic must exist in which one individual
exerts his/her influence over another in an attempt to modify the other’s behavior. The
success of this interaction requires that the other person be docile, i.e. obedient and
88
useful. In order to maintain this power structure then some measure of discipline is
needed. The effect of discipline is to increase the usefulness of bodies, i.e. the ability of
that individual to be productive, usually understood from the position of the influencer,
while decreasing the ability of these bodies to resist. Power wants things to work with
minimal challenge:
Thus discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, ‘docile’ bodies. Discipline increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of utility) and diminishes these same forces (in political terms of obedience). In short, it dissociates power from the body; on the one hand, it turns it into an ‘aptitude’, a ‘capacity’, which it seeks to increase; on the other hand, it reverses the course of energy, the power that might result from it, and turns it into a relation of strict subjection. (Foucault, 1975: 138) Although Foucault’s work has gained popularity through its exposure of
institutional disciplinary mechanisms for control and the misuse of power, we must
consider both points to this argument: he believes that a decrease in the ability to resist
also coincides with an increase in productivity or utility. This argument has profound
repercussions on the means that individuals and institutions can, and do, use power in
order to subjugate docile bodies for their own agendas and designs. However, it is
important to note here that this agenda may not always be constructed as a negative. As
such, Foucault saw that although relations of power had the potential to be corrupted,
discipline and power were not inherently bad. This corruption can be seen in terms of a
disciplinary power maintaining docility in the masses but not increasing their utility, a
benefit to the individual. As such, he continues to explain that “a body is docile that may
be subjected, used, transformed and improved” (Foucault, 1975: 136). Upon closer
examination, we understand that Foucault establishes a system that does two things
simultaneously: increasing utility while decreasing the ability to resist, but ideally for the
89
good of the masses. Indeed, Foucault proposes that, concurrent with the use of power to
increase utility and docility, there can be an accompanying sense that this will benefit
those involved.
Let us take for example a ‘typical’ public school classroom. Here mechanisms of
discipline obviously exist, and can be seen in many examples from the use of detentions
to simply raising one’s hand to answer or ask questions. In these cases, students are
responding to the rules and regulations of the school system and seen as good, in terms of
educating the student and contributing to the development of the community. Although it
is accepted that the rules may be derived solely by the teacher, it is not the teacher who
holds the power but rather the office of the teacher. In Foucault’s argument, we must
consider that the increase in docility means an increase in utility, and in the case of the
public school system this would be determined by the effectiveness of classroom rules to
increase information retention of the children. What becomes important is how the
teacher utilizes the docile bodies of the students: if the teacher uses discipline in order to
maintain a ‘controlled’ classroom so they can teach, this would be considered a positive
use of power by Foucault; but if the teacher uses discipline measures for their own
benefit, such as keeping students quiet to make their day go by easier, than he would see
this as an abuse of power.
Let us also take something that has been the object of criticism, often justified: the pedagogical institution. I don’t see where evil is in the practice of someone who, in a given game of truth, knowing more than another, tells him what he must do, teaches him, transmits knowledge to him, communicates skills to him. The problem is rather to know how you are to avoid in these practices – where power cannot not play and where it is not evil in itself – the effects of domination which will make a child subject to the arbitrary and useless authority of a teacher, or put a student under the power of an abusive authoritarian professor, and so forth. (Foucault, 1988: 18)
90
From this argument, it is not enough to simply assume that power structures do
not exist in the realm of outdoor education. Rather, what now becomes important is to
understand how power can and does play out within this field. By doing so, the outdoor
educator may have a better chance of not falling into the misuse of power that frequently
they feel they are opposing in the public school realm. Therefore, we will now consider
how Foucault perceives the formation of relations of power, and how this can apply to
both the public school and outdoor education.
3.2.2 Means of Correct Training
Having examined Foucault’s ideas of power and its relation to discipline, we
should now consider the mechanisms he proposed that allowed for the generation of a
docile body. These are what he referred to as ‘means of correct training’ (Foucault, 1975:
170) or the ways in which institutions, and society as a whole, conditions the masses to
accept disciplinary power:
Foucault has to be concerned with both power and subject since the theoretical importance of any one of the two elements is directly related to the existence of the other. What Foucault’s analyses propose is an understanding of the process through which subjects are formed. Thus, a subject is that which is amenable to the effects of power: it is the handle by which power takes a hold of/on individual human beings. (Racevskis, 1988: 23)
Thus, the ‘means of correct training’ can be considered an educational framework used to
construct docile bodies. Foucault separated these means of correct training, as a form of
disciplinary control, into three key elements or ideas: (1) Hierarchical Observation, (2)
Normalizing Judgments, and (3) The Examination, and felt that the best system of control
would incorporate all three elements. I will now briefly explain how each contributes to a
91
Foucaultian notion of disciplinary control, and how each may be illustrated by examples
from our public schools. Furthermore, I shall argue, each component exists in the theory
and practice of outdoor education, though they may manifest themselves in very different
ways.
1. Hierarchical Observation – Foucault recognized that an institution must
evolve a system in order to maintain proper discipline to increase the utility of a docile
body while decreasing the ability to resist. This system has the basic idea that one
individual in power can, and does, have the ability to simultaneously observe multiple
subjugated bodies. In Foucault’s words, hierarchical observation “coerces by means of
observation; an apparatus in which the techniques that make it possible to see induce
effects of power” (Foucault, 1975: 170). He uses the example of the physical
arrangement of a military camp, where tents were arranged in rows in front of the leading
captain’s tent, to illustrate the implementation of a method of constant surveillance. Of
course, this example is analogous to the modern classroom, where the teacher’s desk is
front-and-center facing rigid rows of student desks. Although not every classroom
resembles this traditional form, it is still common, and other designs, circles or learning
hubs, don’t necessarily impair the potential for continual surveillance.
From this, Foucault envisioned that “the perfect disciplinary apparatus would
make it possible for a single gaze to see everything constantly” (Foucault, 1975: 173).
However, this goes beyond the classroom itself and suggests a mechanism of
observational units embedded within each lower set. The current public education system
structure is an excellent example of such hierarchical observation: starting with a
92
province’s Department of Education, headed by the Minister of Education, who oversees
many subordinates who in turn oversee and observe the school boards, each in turn
observing the schools (principals) within their jurisdiction, which in turn observe the
teachers, who finally observe each individual student. While the Minister of Education
does not directly oversee the education of every student, hierarchical observation is a
means of correct training that ensures the maintenance of the power dynamic for the
docile body to increase utility.
Although outdoor education has a governing hierarchy, it may be argued that at
the level of the classes, it offers a distinct contrast. Outdoor education does not typically
have the architectural confines of institutional schooling, and thus might arguably not
provide the teacher with the same opportunity for constant observation. However, there
is typically in outdoor education a serious reliance on the circle as meeting place or a
conscious setting of boundaries within which participants may move both physically and
emotionally. There is also a much reduced student-teacher ratio and closer, more
intensive interaction between teacher and student to ensure, it is argued, the safety,
physical and emotional, of the students. Potentially this, like the open school design,
might be offered as an example of Foucault’s relations of power not necessarily always
being considered negative and, indeed, exerting power in this way in order for students to
have a successful and safe experience is arguably a priority in both settings.
Nevertheless, outdoor educators need to recognize that they are involved in a relationship
of power which can be abused both thoughtfully and in ignorance and that it has the
potential to cause harm. It is not enough to assume that simply because the trappings and
93
structures of the school system are not present that discipline and control are no longer
being exercised.
2. Normalizing Judgments – It may be considered that Foucault’s idea of
normalizing judgments to be of greater importance to his means of correct training. His
essential argument is that, in order to maintain disciplinary control, institutions must
create a system that not only individualizes bodies, but, in doing so, judges them in terms
of acceptable behavior. “What is specific to disciplinary penality is non-observance, that
which does not measure up to the rule, that departs from it. The whole indefinite domain
of the non-conforming is punishable” (Foucault, 1975: 178). Foucault then goes on to
describe how “disciplinary punishment has the function of reducing gaps. It must
therefore be essentially corrective” (Foucault, 1975: 179). What Foucault suggests here is
a process whereby norms are established and then learned by individuals. These norms
also become the background against which the individual is judged. In the context of
modern schooling, the idea of normalizing judgment creates observed deficiencies in
students: those that fall behind their classmates in terms of ability to comprehend their
academic studies are those who are judged against a particular set of norms and found to
be lacking. In this context, Foucault sees discipline as part of the double element of
gratification-punishment, and as a result, “it marks the gaps, hierarchizes qualities, skills
and aptitudes; but it also punishes and rewards” (Foucault, 1975: 181). Here one can see
the example of the child who finishes his/her schoolwork early and is rewarded with ‘free
time’ in the class, while those that continue to struggle must remain engaged in their
work until it is completed (ironically using schoolwork as punishment). In summary,
94
Foucault sees the art of punishing as “the perpetual penality that traverses all points and
supervises every instant in the disciplinary institutions compares, differentiates,
hierarchizes, homogenizes, excludes. In short, it normalizes” (Foucault, 1975: 183). Here
we should note that language of standards and expectations are part and parcel of this
process. When outdoor educators gather to ‘standardize’ the field or create curriculum
that ‘meets expectations’ these discussions and decisions are creating norms against
which all have the potential to be judged.
With regard to punishment, there appears to be a significant difference between
pedagogy in outdoor education and that of traditional schooling, and even from
Foucault’s view of its normalizing influence on the individual. Success or failure in
outdoor programs is often seen as a function of the team that incorporates individual
skills within the collective work of the group. For example, in the commonly used
challenge of the obstacle wall, success can only be defined in terms of the contribution
and participation of the entire group. No one person would be considered solely
responsible for the success of the group, so no individual may be singled out for blame or
praise. However, perhaps the idea of group itself becomes a mechanism for controlling
the individual. The notion of norming is built into the very way group formation is
described in outdoor education. Questions of how success or failure is to be understood,
of what might be done differently next time, and of whether all members feel empowered
or engaged, involved or heard are all part of the group normalizing process.
For example, in any debriefing portion of an activity, when instructors provide
students a moment to reflect on their experience, there are a thousand subtle clues
indicating underlying normalizing judgments: the kinds of questions asked, the nod of the
95
head or the ubiquitous verbal support when a student describes a ‘correct’ action or
insight, and the quick move over a troublesome, tangential suggestion. Acceptable
behavior in an outdoor program may be different from that in the public school
classroom, but the mechanisms of control do not vary. The success of the high-
functioning group may be attributed to the acceptance by each of its members of norms
established by the group (and, perhaps, the program) and of fear of the consequences of
non-conformity, which in an outdoor setting might be seen by the participant to be quite
dire. By focusing on the group, rather than the individual, outdoor education has shifted
the emphasis of normalizing judgment but not abandoned it. If normalizing judgments
are, indeed, an integral part of outdoor education then what is important is that instructors
be aware of this and ask themselves whether those judgments are being used to promote
the learning goals, or whether they may unwittingly reflect norms extraneous to the
purpose of the program and detrimental to the students’ experience. Are we ‘fixing’
mistakes present in traditional schooling or are we creating new ones?
3. The Examination – The final element of Foucault’s means of correct training
is the examination. It is a means of confirming the individuality, and visibility, of the
docile body and, in the process, establishes a normalizing judgment on his/her actions or
abilities. Foucault noted how the examination exercised power by creating a field of
documentation that could be used for comparison, and thus could be used to grade one’s
rank within a group. This results in the creation of winners and losers within an
institution, and that to have one you must have the other, thus placing individuals on the
unacceptable extreme, which Foucault called “the external frontier of the abnormal”
96
(Foucault, 1975: 183). “The examination combines the techniques of an observing
hierarchy and those of a normalizing judgment” (Foucault, 1975: 184) and therefore “the
examination in the school was a constant exchanger of knowledge; it guaranteed the
movement of knowledge from the teacher to the pupil, but it extracted from a pupil a
knowledge destined and reserved for the teacher” (Foucault, 1975: 187). The impact of
the concept of the examination as power control and means of correct training can easily
be seen in the use of final and provincial exams. Since students never see their corrected
provincial exams for the purpose of discovering omissions in their knowledge, this type
of exam has the one function of documenting the student’s position within the school
system through both observation and normalizing judgment. This creates the docile body
through pressures to ‘measure up’ to their peers and through the apprehension that the
exams are useful to unknown observers.
In outdoor education the instructional design is very different. Outdoor education
embraces the theory of experiential education, and although presented in various ways,
the theory goes through typical stages of learning: action, reflection, abstraction, and
application (Itin, 1999). Students engage in activities, in order to gain experience, prior
to the critical reflection stage of their learning where the greatest contribution to their
understanding occurs. For example, in a typical wilderness first aid course, students are
given a scenario of providing care to a simulated patient. Then the instructor gathers the
students together for the de-briefing session when critical aspects of procedure and
learning are discussed in terms of their newly acquired experiences, thus reinforcing
content knowledge. It is at this stage that students internalize the new information and,
thinking about it, make it their own. In this educational experience the examination – in
97
our example, whether the patient lives or dies – occurs at the initial action stage. Because
of this reversal of the usual sequence of teaching followed by testing, outdoor education
appears to avert Foucault’s critique of examinations.
However, we might ask ourselves whether, given the relationship of power that
Foucault describes, the examination might not creep into experiential outdoor programs.
Since, in our approach to the learning process, action precedes reflection, we need to ask
ourselves what happens if, at the reflection stage, students appear not to be learning or to
be getting things wrong. If the instructor then tries to steer the reflective process, the
question immediately arises as to whether the normalizing process is at work, and
whether individual creativity is being sacrificed on the altar of ‘best practice’. This form
of control might be more insidious than that practiced in the classroom situation with
standardized examinations.
In our discussion of Foucault’s three principal means of correct training, I have
argued that, though perhaps different in the way they are used, they do occur in outdoor
education, and this poses a difficult question. If one takes the view that Foucault’s notion
of docile bodies should always be perceived negatively, then this would be a potential
source of consternation for outdoor education, as it is typically viewed by those in the
field, as an emancipating and enlightening experience for students. There appears to be
an educational paradox at play here, can one really support the process of emancipation
through creation of docile bodies and the use of discipline and control? Yet Foucault’s
fundamental argument is that the effect of discipline is to increase the usefulness of
bodies while decreasing the ability of these bodies to resist. Thus, if an institution had
less disciplinary control over its individuals, Foucault would argue that there would be a
98
corresponding decrease in utility; in the case of teaching this utility is in the form of
student learning. The corollary response to the paradox above might then claim; if the
goal is to teach/support emancipation and that is something that can be learned then why
not maximize docility in order to succeed? We can certainly imagine examples where
students are given free reign to pursue whatever activities they wish or to engage in
reflection or not as the case may be, in short, a situation with limited docility, where no
learning occurs. Without the direction and structure provided by an instructor, there is the
potential for students to engage in activities with which they are already familiar, and
reflection is neglected, thus limiting learning potential. However, outdoor experiential
education believes itself to be an effective means of promoting learning, thus suggesting,
if Foucault is to be believed, that mechanisms of disciplinary control do, yet in a
particular form, underlie its practice.
3.2.3 Institutional Frameworks and the Panopticon
Now that we have examined how Foucault perceives the functioning of discipline
and power, I will briefly describe how he views institutions maximizing this potential.
Foucault recognized that the structure of Bentham’s architectural Panopticon embodies
the principle in which discipline and control can be intensified in a person based on their
institutional environment (Foucault, 1975: 200). As such, he used this model to describe
five key characteristics that enhanced the use of power: 1) constant surveillance, which
creates 2) an internalization of discipline that 3) reduces the requirement for punishment
and 4) creates a productivity increase, through 5) an automatic system. What is important
to take from Foucault’s use of the Panopticon framework is that if power and discipline
99
are used effectively, then individuals will internalize and self-perpetuate the system of
control.
He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection. (Foucault, 1975: 202)
Therefore, Foucault saw the major effect of the Panopticon “to induce in the inmate a
state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of
power” (Foucault, 1975: 201). A concrete, and somewhat intriguing example for our
purposes here example is that of a school built during the height of the last wave of
community education design innovation. The school is built in pods around a central
hub, the library, with the pods only separated by walls of glass. This open concept
represents the extension of progressive educational ideas into school architecture, and
yet, if one stands at the door to the principal’s office, one can see into every nook and
cranny of the entire school; supervision, or constant observation, is built into the fabric of
the structure.
Although Foucault recognized that, historically, discipline was used to subjugate
the physical body of an individual, his fundamental premise is that our society has
transitioned from the idea of imprisonment for the body to that of the mind. From this, he
derived his view on relationships of power. Foucault believed that power and discipline
could not be separated by any societal interaction, and that we have accepted that this is
how society operates. Not only are we imprisoned by “systems of thoughts and practice”,
but we become so blind to them that we have become our own jailers.
The single experience which was always at the source of [Foucault’s] thought was the reality of imprisonment, the incarceration of human
100
beings within modern systems of thought and practice which had become so intimately a part of them that they no longer experienced these systems as a series of confinements but embraced them as the very structure of being human. (Bernauer, 1988: 45) However, if we are to question how power and discipline are used, we must then
consider how we frame our interpersonal interactions and relationships. This is of
particular importance for outdoor education that attempts to bring learners into a novel
environment in order to enhance their cognitive and social interactions. Thus the ultimate
question in this discussion becomes: How do outdoor educators actively or unconsciously
develop power structures into their outdoor programming, and how readily do students
accept and assimilate these structures?
As discussed in Chapter Two of this thesis, when students engage in outdoor
education there is a fundamental notion that they are placed in a physically and socially
unfamiliar environment, and this modifies their behavior and learning potential (Priest &
Gass, 2005: 20). As students prepare to enter the unknown, be it kayaking, a new group,
or a solo site, a degree of anxiety is generated. This risky situation and the associated
anxiety has been discussed in great detail (Priest & Baillie, 1987), and, as was also
outlined in Chapter Two, what is important is to minimize the actual risk while
maintaining the anxiety (the perceived risk) in order to obtain peak learning performance,
or to be in a state of flow. Therefore, regardless of how safe an activity may be, students
feel anxiety whether about their ability to perform, peer judgment, or even their personal
safety. It appears then that, in Foucault’s terms, the wilderness setting and the unfamiliar
challenges it presents are a form of discipline, and that the possibility of some shameful
misfortune or of a physical accident may well occur as a form of punishment, presumably
to be avoided if possible. Just as society has social and cultural rules defining and setting
101
limits to behaviour, so does the wilderness environment. If one does not respect the
forces of nature and takes risks, then one faces the consequences.
This restriction of activity resulting from the apprehension of risk is related to
Foucault’s ideas of disciplinary measures, as the following quotation shows.
Discipline proceeds from the distribution of individuals in space… Discipline sometimes requires enclosure… It does this first of all in the principle of elementary location or partitioning. Each individual has his own place; and each place its individual. … Even if the compartments it assigns become purely ideal, the disciplinary space is always, basically, cellular (Foucault, 1975: 141). In programs of outdoor education it is the natural environment that potentially
establishes the ‘cell walls’; the boundaries within which an individual can operate
without suffering punishment. The solo site is a clear example of a natural, physical, and
we could argue, mental cell. Of course, students involved in outdoor education often test
these boundaries, and this may be encouraged in order for them to explore their true
potential. So, in addition to the natural limits, educators will impose further boundaries
or rules. This will often be done for reasons of safety, but the instructor may deliberately
build risks into the program in order to heighten the learning experience, and this follows
very closely Foucault’s claim that utility (learning) increases when the ability to resist
decreases, that is, in this case, when the risk, perceived or actual, of penalty rises. It
might be mentioned in passing that students play a much larger role in the setting of
limits than we tend to give them credit for. Maximal utility occurs, according to Foucault,
when the prisoner (the student) is not, at first, aware of natural or personal limits but, by
the end, reaches a point where he or she is able to take responsibility for him- or herself,
becoming, as it were, their own jailer. At this point, students may no longer feel that the
102
outdoor educator is trying to punish or control them, but is, rather, the means to a safe
adventure.
3.2.4 Foucault and Outdoor Education
The effect of discipline is to increase the usefulness of bodies (in terms of
education, the understanding of the learner) while decreasing the ability of these bodies to
resist through the use of limits and controls. Though the mechanisms of hierarchical
observation, normalizing judgment, and the examination may be different in outdoor
education they, nevertheless, still pertain. For example, discipline becoming the use of
and response to risk may be a different mechanism than typically is incorporated in a
public school, but it nevertheless fulfills the same purpose. The outdoor educator can now
allot to students roles, responsibilities and functions far more easily than can the
traditional classroom teacher. Handing out packs and paddles doesn’t meet the same
resistance as finding the student willing to pass out new textbooks. The willingness
(docility) increases to such a degree that the outdoor educator can easily establish roles in
a team for each individual to fill, such as taking up the rear of a hiking group,
maintaining canoe counts on the water, or being a spotter in rock-climbing. The students
have the sense that they are gaining power, becoming emancipated, but they are also
assimilating the disciplinary structure, participating in the process of observation and
control. Foucault states that whenever an instructor assigns duties or tasks to particular
members of a group, there is an automatic, implicit or explicit, structuring of the “unit”.
The unit is, therefore, neither the territory (unit of domination), nor the place (unit of residence), but the rank: the place one occupies in a classification…Discipline is an art of rank, a technique for the transformation of arrangements. It individualizes bodies by a location that
103
does not give them a fixed position, but distributes them and circulates them in a network of relations. (Foucault, 1975: 145) While the outdoor educator might believe that he or she has given responsibility
and freedom to the students under their care, a belief which may be shared by the
students, this does not negate the fact that disciplinary measures underlie the program.
The learning environment is designed by the instructor to maximize perceived risk, and
therefore establishing roles becomes a matter of tactics. “Tactics, the art of constructing,
with located bodies, coded activities and trained aptitudes, mechanisms in which the
product of various forces is increased by their calculated combination are no doubt the
highest form of disciplinary practice” (Foucault, 1975: 167).
Outdoor education is perceived to be highly successful in terms of the increasing
responsibility and autonomy assumed by its students. Ironically, this suggests, according
to Foucault’s correlation of increased learning with increased docility that students in
outdoor education programs are more docile than others, those in the regular school
system for instance and, if more docile, then might they not be less emancipated? But let
us recall that Foucault also states that the use of discipline to promote learning is not
necessarily a bad thing, and the docility of the students may be less a fear of punishment
than a willingness to participate in an adventurous, if somewhat scary, experience; in this
we might argue they are willing their own docility from a place of freedom.
However, an important point to this argument now arises. I would suggest that
typically outdoor instructors develop programs that model or focus on elements or
situations in the outdoors that they themselves have felt to be transformative. This sense
of change within themselves has prompted them to share this experience with others. Yet
in doing so they automatically transform the experience; as Foucault argues that no
104
relation is without a power structure. For example, an instructor may be impressed with a
site so much and felt how it has transformed their outlook on the wilderness and society
that they develop a program to expose students to a similar ‘view’. But in doing so,
expectations of a learning moment arise; the outdoor instructor expects students to ‘get
something’ out of the experience, and will guide the activity in such a way as to produce
this result. Although the end result can be a wonderful and effective program, it must be
seen that any designed learning program adds an element of control that shifts it away
from a truly emancipatory experience.
Therefore, contrary to the common understated belief in the field that outdoor
education does not reflect the hierarchical structures of the mainstream society, I have
proposed in this chapter that the relationship of power that prevails in public education is
very much a part of outdoor, experiential programs. Though its application may differ
from that in the public school system, it forms an integral part of the pedagogy. There is
close supervision of students by their instructor; risk, inherent in nature and added to by
the instructor, imposes discipline and even the threat of punishment; and, though there is
no examination per se, judgment by instructor and by peers makes itself felt.
In view of this we should ask ourselves whether outdoor educators are justified in
making use of these means of control, these common levers of power, if they appear to
contradict the very goals that they set out for their programs. It is at best inconsistent to
claim that the purpose of experiential outdoor education is to promote autonomy and
critical-thinking in its students when the instructors employ the methodology and
structures of the dominant society. Can outdoor education really be seen to be a force for
emancipation, when the tactics used are the same as those that serve the social hierarchy?
105
A tentative answer to this challenge may lie in how those means of control and discipline
are used. As I have noted, Foucault did not think that the use of discipline to create docile
bodies for the purpose of utility was necessarily bad. Indeed, how else can we perceive
the process of teaching and learning if not by means of an unequal relationship, i.e. that
of teacher and student or parent and child. The key to the problem is to be found in the
consciousness that the instructor brings to bear. He or she must be conscious of the nature
of the relationship that exists with the students, and that this relationship is necessarily
unequal and also temporary. The goal is to re-establish equality, to lead the students to
the point where they are autonomous, where they are no longer docile bodies.
To elaborate this important point let us take the example of a master craftsman
and their apprentice. This relationship of power can be very close and rigid, where the
apprentice does not deviate at all from the craftsman’s techniques and procedures. Yet
this relation is transitory; eventually the apprentice will become the master craftsman. If
the original master had taught the apprentice in order to control simply for the extra help
than this might be considered an abuse of power, but if they taught with the goal of
creating the next generation within their field then this could be argued to be the good in
the use of power and discipline. Likewise, as educators we must consider that our use of
outdoor experiential programs are not themselves empancipatory but rather allow for the
opportunity for the student to develop a perspective on future freedom and transformative
goals. Our end goal as educators is empowerment, but through a Foucaultian argument
we can only do this by modeling a structure of power in order to bring students to the
position of choice. That is to say, the outdoor program may follow all these rules, which
we have argued are needed, in order to bring students to the point of empowerment, but
106
are not necessarily empowering in their acts themselves; could not outdoor education be
the great example of how the docile body is used in a positive way to increase utility?
107
3.3 Schön – The Reflective Practitioner
Through the works of Foucault, I have suggested a correlation, or bridging,
between experiential outdoor education and public schooling in terms of their use of
institutional structuring. This provides the argument that outdoor education should be
compatible with public schooling in terms of program control and administrative
mechanisms. Now we should also consider a second important factor when dealing with
these two educational forms: the role of the educator. If we can find similarities between
the outdoor education facilitator and the public school teacher then it could be argued that
these roles are compatible and potentially interchangeable (provided an individual has the
base skills required in both areas). To demonstrate this I would like to draw on the work
of Donald Schön and his view of the reflective practitioner as one such model that can
help enlighten our understanding of such potential compatibility between educational
roles.
In order to potentially bridge the role of outdoor education facilitator and school
teacher, first we need to understand how Schön initially frames professional practice. A
driving force for Schön’s research stemmed from his observation of how professionals
related their practice to theories of knowledge. He observed that often in order to justify
their practice, individuals for the most part relied on what he called ‘technical
rationality’.
According to the model of Technical Rationality – the view of professional knowledge which has most powerfully shaped both our thinking about the professions and the institutional relations of research, education, and practice – professional activity consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique. (Schön, 1983: 21)
108
He perceived that this derived from the use of quantitative results through scientific
technique that allowed one to ‘prove’ a particular stance, thus supporting the belief that
the method was seen as rigorous. A good example of how technical rationality can play
out in the school system can been seen when new programs are introduced. Often the first
benchmark for determining the success of these new programs is in the correlated results
of possible increases in standardized test scores or the reduction of drop-out rate
percentages. Although these indicators have value in both research and practice, Schön
wondered if there was something perhaps more influential that could underlie
professional practice than just adhering to technical rationality.
3.3.1 Artistry and Learning Loops
Donald Schön believed that another kind of practice, which he called artistry,
exists and has an important place in how professionals interact with their chosen fields
and clientele.
I have used the term professional artistry to refer to the kinds of competence practitioners sometimes display in unique, uncertain, and conflicted situations of practice. Note, however, that their artistry is a high-powered, esoteric variant of the more familiar sorts of competence all of us exhibit every day in countless acts of recognition, judgment, and skillful performance. What is striking about both kinds of competence is that they do not depend on our being able to describe what we know how to do or even to entertain in conscious thought the knowledge our actions reveal. (Schön, 1987: 22)
Schön had considered the role of artistry by reflecting on the intermediate zones of
professional practice that were not easily explained by the epistemology of technical
rationality (as thought of as a frame of mind or set of expectations). In this argument, he
considered artistry to be an important method of dealing with tacit knowledge (Argyris &
109
Schön, 1974: 10), in which a skill is demonstrated without being able to explicitly explain
the actions or verbalize the procedures used. We often see this in everyday practice
within the school classroom where a teacher has set up an approach and pedagogy based
on ‘what works’; their own tacit knowledge and use of professional artistry. Frequently,
researchers may even try to understand this performance through the use of technical
rationality by quantitative analysis of the teacher’s work using the scientific method.
However, for the teacher it did not matter that they could not consciously comprehend
why they taught the way they did, for the use of tacit knowledge allowed them to become
successful in their chosen practice.
Thus, Schön considered the need for professionals to consider the use of artistry
to compliment, or even supersede, the mind set of technical rationality in order to think
through everyday ambiguous or complex situations when reliance on pre-established
methods may prove limiting.
From the perspective of technical rationality, professional practice is a process of problem solving. Problems of choice or decision are solved through the selection, from available means, of the one best suited to established ends. But with this emphasis on problem solving, we ignore problem setting, the process by which we define the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, the means which may be chosen. In real-world practice, problems do not present themselves to the practitioner as givens. They must be constructed from the materials of problematic situations which are puzzling, troubling, and uncertain. (Schön, 1983: 40)
In order to understand how individuals cope with such situations in professional
practice, a distinction must be made between single-loop and double-loop learning.
Single-loop learning relies more on technical rationality for a person to construct
problems and solutions within the frame of existing facts and procedures. However, in
double-loop learning the individual actually re-frames the existing situation and redefines
110
the problem in order to overcome the challenge rather than working in the confines of the
established criteria. For example, in the automotive industry two ways could be
developed in order to deal with the rising cost of gasoline: either use a single-loop
learning method and try to assemble a more efficient engine, or use double-loop learning
and question if this is even the best means of transportation and look towards alternate
and more sustainable options.
In single-loop learning, we learn to maintain the field of constancy by learning to design actions that satisfy existing governing variables. In double-loop learning, we learn to change the field of constancy itself. Double-loop learning does not supercede single-loop learning. Single-loop learning enables us to avoid continuing investment in the highly predictable activities that make up the bulk of our lives; but the theory-builder becomes a prisoner of his programs if he allows them to continue unexamined indefinitely. Double-loop learning changes the governing variables (the “settings”) of one’s programs and causes ripples of change to fan out over one’s whole system of theories-in-use. (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 19)
It is important to note here that Schön did not always see the need to engage in
double-loop learning, particularly if the activity in question was a rote task or problem.
For example, the day-to-day operation of a classroom requires a teacher to maintain a
class list of students present. A simple problem of how to record attendance represents a
single-loop learning moment, and in this case is justified based on the task. However,
more complicated cases may involve double-loop learning. For example, a teacher may
have a student that does not understand the material presented to him or her. Regardless
of the techniques used nothing seems to allow for the transfer of knowledge to this
student. Now at this point there could be value in double-loop learning and questioning
outside the confines of the problem; maybe the student is too young to learn such
material, and now the question becomes a matter of whether or not the material is
111
appropriate for learning rather than the focus on the student’s ‘ability’ to learn the
material. Thus Schön considered the use of double-loop learning to be a skill that is
paramount for moving away from technical rationality in practice towards professional
artistry.
3.3.2 Modeling Group Dynamics
Schön’s work on artistry and technical rationality, and the issues derived from
them, were also considered in terms of their effects on group dynamics. Chris Argyris, a
frequent collaborator, and Schön were motivated to understand the ways in which
individuals in a given profession, as the sole experts in their field, joined together to form
self-regulating bodies to govern the working relationships between professionals and
their clients. In order to overcome the novel challenges presented in professional practice,
Schön and Argyris examined the group dynamics of individuals working together and
proposed two distinct models of professional practice, which they simply referred to as
model I and model II. I will briefly outline the main assumptions and implications of both
methods, and go on to explain Schön’s theories of reflection-in-action (as introduced in
the first chapter of this thesis) and the resulting reflective practitioner as a means of
moving from model I to model II ways of practice.
Model I (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 63)
The key characteristic of interactions in model I behavior is that they are
defensive in nature. The authors argued that model I behavior is the predominate
mechanism used in group dynamics in our society. As such, the characteristics of this
112
method may appear, or can be used, as a general template for group decision making
processes.
When a group of professionals, or arguably any group for that matter, is presented
with a problem, model I behavior predicts certain responses to such a challenge. First, the
group explicitly attempts to define goals and then proceeds to achieve them. This stance
fundamentally implies that there is a definable problem that can be fixed in a sound
procedural way. In order to do this, group members hold strongly to the idea of being
rational, or finding logical conclusions or solutions. As such, there is little room for
intuition, and emotional considerations are deemed counter-productive. However, the
group is likely to try to minimize the generation or expression of negative feelings as
these are perceived as detrimental to the model of technical rationality. Finally, after
establishing the goals for the problem, individuals become very concerned with
maximizing winning and minimizing losing, even to the point that “once they decided on
their goals, changing them would be a sign of weakness” (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 67).
Note that it could be argued that brain-storming sessions are an attempt to break out of
technical rationality and its reliance on logical conclusions. This may be considered a
bridging technique between model I and model II (described in the next section), but its
success can be in question. If individuals hold true to the model I method of group
dynamics than any brain-storming or consideration of alternate views is superficial at best
since this would be counter productive to them establishing individualized ‘winning’
roles within a group.
From these governing variables, individuals within the group attempt to situate
themselves in the most successful position to meet the particular goals. These behaviors,
113
although generalized, are considered to be the fundamental principles that guide
individuals using model I behavior. First, individuals attempt to design and manage the
situation unilaterally. Here, “individuals tended to plan actions secretly. They attempted
to persuade and cajole others to agree with their definitions of a situation” (Argyris &
Schön, 1974: 70). As such, individuals are likely to claim ownership and control the task,
while being ‘the guardian of the definition and execution of the task.’ In doing so,
individuals attempt to unilaterally protect themselves and others. As such, “withholding
valuable and important information, telling white lies, suppressing feelings, and offering
false sympathy are examples of this strategy. The speaker assumes that the other person
needs to be protected and that this strategy should be kept secret; neither assumption is
tested” (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 71). For example, if a teaching staff gets together to talk
about ‘best practices’ for their school, often teachers will bring up activities and
procedures that they use within their own classroom. But in doing so, often they try to
defend and establish that their method is the ‘best’ for the school, yet at the same time
attempting to keep their techniques and details secret enough so that they maintain
ownership ‘rights’ over such a procedure. Here there is an intimate connection made
between the value of the individual and the value of the contribution or idea. To defend
an idea is to defend one’s position within a group.
Of course, consequences result from such model I behavior. Typically, the
individuals are seen as inconsistent in action, competitive, controlling, and manipulative.
They are seen as defensive in both their interpersonal and group relationships, and as
such do not typically offer help to others. As a result, defensive norms quickly surface,
including mistrust, withholding of feelings, conformity, emphasis on diplomacy, and
114
rivalry. As such, this generates a situation which has low freedom of choice, low internal
commitment or personalization of the task, and low degrees of risk taking.
Even more importantly, there are learning potential consequences of model I
behavior because such group situations are self-sealing, where the problem under
consideration becomes the only possible frame of reference. As a result, single-loop
learning is the predominate method used in model I situations. Also, little testing of
individual theories is done publicly due to the risk associated with stating possible fallible
opinions. In the previous example of a teaching staff trying to determine ‘best practices’,
even though a teacher may bring forward their idea, and rationally state why it is the best,
there would be little desire to actual test this out against others as this might uncover
problems (which they view as weaknesses) in their approach. Thus consideration of the
idea becomes biased in an attempt to hold true to that very idea.
From examining such group dynamics, Schön proposes that model I behavior
explicitly makes four main assumptions about all social interactions: 1) it is a win/lose
world; 2) other people behave according to assumptions of model I; 3) rational behavior
is most effective; and 4) public testing of assumptions is intolerably risky (Argyris &
Schön, 1974: 79). All these characteristics, strategies, and consequences are in sharp
contrast to what the authors propose for a model II behavior method. As Schön suggests
that model I is the predominate model for most group interactions in society, we must, at
the very least, consider the potential of its presence in not only public education, but also
in experiential and outdoor education.
115
Model II (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 85)
The most significant property of model II is its ability not to be self-sealing, its tendency to permit progressively more effective testing of assumptions and progressively greater learning about one’s effectiveness. (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 86)
When model II behavior is used in group settings, a significant shift occurs in
how individuals define the governing variables used for such an interaction. First, it is
observed that an emphasis is placed on maximizing valid information, and thus goals are
less important as ends than the information is as means. From this, two points also arise:
the maximizing of free and informed choice, and the maximizing of internal commitment
to decisions made. What this suggests is that individuals take personal responsibility for
group action.
Internal commitment means that the individual feels that he, himself, is responsible for his choices. The individual is committed to an action because it is intrinsically satisfying – not, as in the case of model I, committed because someone is rewarding or penalizing him to be committed. (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 89)
Because of these considerations, the way in which individuals manage group
activity sharply contrasts with model I behaviors. In model II, designing and managing
the situation becomes a bilateral task where each individual has the potential to feel
essential to the group process of the activity. As such, defensive action is reduced and
now individuals become jointly responsible for maintaining emotional protection of self
and others. From this lack of defensiveness, individuals now speak in directly observable
categories because there is no longer the fear of needing to defend one’s position against
attack. As all input can be weighed for the value of meaning, and not its personal source,
“this creates a predisposition toward inquiry and learning” (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 91). I
would argue that model II behavior can be considered a method whereby individuals
116
release personal ownership of knowledge positions and instead use their resources in
combination with other members of the group. This results in the ability for each
individual to critically re-examine their predispositions in light of new insight provided
from the group. In other words, a distinction is made between the value of the individual
and the weighted value of possible information brought to the group by this person. Of
course, this transition from model I to model II is more of a mindset than a procedural
task. It involves ‘letting go’ of personal ownership of ideas in order to mitigate the
defensiveness that model I produces. In a world dominated by model I behavior, as Schön
argues, such a transition is challenging at best.
However, it can be observed that natural consequences result to alter the relations
between members of the group. Since each individual is less defensive in model II, roles
can be defined such as facilitator, collaborator, or choice creator. Next, the minimally
defensive individual role allows for interpersonal relations and group dynamics that are
also not driven by competitive or defensive stances. Finally, this results in learning-
oriented norms such as trust, individuality, and open confrontation on difficult issues.
If individuals behave according to the governing variables and action strategies of model II, others will tend to see them as minimally defensive and open to learning, as facilitators, collaborators, and people who hold their theories-in-use firmly (because they are internally committed to them) but are equally committed to having them confronted and tested. (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 91)
What results, Schön argues, are three important points for model II behavior: 1)
disconfirmable processes, or methods that are in place that allow for knowledge to be
confronted and tested; 2) double-loop learning becomes the dominate method; and 3)
testing of theories enters the public realm rather than being maintained in secret.
117
By examining the differences between these two models of behavior, it is easy to
see that the objective of any group, in order to be the most effective, should be to move
from model I towards model II action. Yet, the presence of defensive action and secrecy
present in model I, which makes it a less desirable than model II for group dynamics, is
the very aspect that makes it challenging to transition out of this mindset and into a model
II group dynamic. This transition, however, is the focus of much of Schön’s research (as
will be described in the next section).
The examination of Schön’s model I and II group theory has interesting
implications for considering the compatibility of experiential outdoor education and
public schooling. To address this issue, we must also consider what Schön referred to as
the use of espoused theories versus theories-in-use. He considered espoused theories to
be those that individuals perceived their actions and beliefs followed as a procedural idea,
while theories-in-use become what their actual actions and beliefs that they have may
demonstrate.
When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use, which may or may not be compatible with his espoused theory; furthermore, the individual may or may not be aware of the incompatibility of the two theories. (Argyris & Schön, 1974: 7) Schön believed that much of professional group dynamics and interactions with
their clientele follow the pattern of model I behavior. Therefore, let us make an
assumption that the institution of public schooling is no different than other professions
which Schön has studied in-depth. This is not to say that there are not many gifted
educators that follow model II behavior (even if they are not aware of it, as in the form as
118
tacit knowledge). Indeed most individuals should be able to recall a teacher or mentor
that possessed such group interactive traits as outlined in model II. However, what I
would argue is that, as the larger society, we view the espoused theories of the public
school system as following model I behavior. Now if we consider the profession of
outdoor education, there is very much an espoused theory among its educators that
resembles a model II approach to group dynamics (even if the educator does not label it
as such). From the micro-scale use of de-briefing circles where all individuals are given
conscious voice and value to the macro-scale scope in the understanding or belief that
outdoor education empowers groups dynamics by shaping and re-framing social
interactions in a more positive way, these can be viewed as manifestations of model II
behavior (even if the outdoor facilitator is doing so through the use of tacit knowledge of
why these skill sets seem to be effective). Therefore, even though much of the outdoor
education profession does not frame their argument in the terms proposed by Schön, we
see a similarity in their espoused theory of education (as detailed in the Chapter Two of
this thesis) and that of model II.
Since if we still assume that public education is operating in a model I form, we
can see why many outdoor educators would oppose such a form of education as not being
emancipatory in design. Yet this is only due to an espoused theory of their practice. As
one can claim that there are many gifted school teachers that operate in a model II frame,
it is just as obvious to state that not every outdoor educator would operate in a model II
frame. Even though outdoor education has an espoused theory of using model II
behavior, there would be times, places, and certain individuals/facilitators where their
theories-in-use operate as model I. Therefore a bridge presents itself. If we agree with
119
Schön that transitioning from model I to model II behavior is possible, and that public
schools and outdoor education both have the potential for their theories-in-use to model
either method, then the transitioning towards more model II behavior becomes a similar
goal for them both (even if the espoused theory of outdoor education ‘believes’ they are
closer to achieving this than in public schooling). Thus the compatibility between these
two forms of education may exist in utilizing outdoor education as a catalyst in public
schooling to strengthen and transition more to model II group dynamics. This can leave
us now to understand how Schön believes such as transition is possible, as I will outline
in the next section.
3.3.3 Frames of Reference
From the above argument, I believe, comes an important point about frames of
reference: because model I depends on static frames, in order to move to model II
behavior, the practitioner, through reflection, must re-frame or manipulate the problem
set in order to discover alternate solutions.
Inquiry, however it may initially have been conceived, turns into a frame experiment. What allows this to happen is that the inquirer is willing to step into the problematic situation, to impose a frame on it, to follow the implications of the discipline thus established, and yet to remain open to the situation’s back-talk. Reflecting on the surprising consequences of his efforts to shape the situation in conformity with his initially chosen frame, the inquirer frames new questions and new ends in view. (Schön, 1983: 269)
For Schön, this notion of re-framing is central to examining the role of the reflective
practitioner. Re-framing and reflective practice requires the use of artistry over technical
rationality as it attempts to make sense of possible tacit knowledge embedded in
ambiguous situations. Therefore, as Schön would argue, the ability to reflect on both the
120
action and the frame of the action is important. For example, for a public school teacher
to be a reflective practitioner not only do they need to reflect on how to take attendance
of a class, but also the underlying need for this action to be present as a benefit to their
institution and profession.
However, in practice, this theory of framing and re-framing becomes more
complex as individuals encounter learning binds, or situations in which they are not able
to progress further because they are unable to frame the problem or understanding in such
a way to discover a solution. When this occurs, Schön has suggested that:
We can also introduce another dimension of analysis, a vertical dimension according to which higher levels of activity are ‘meta’ to those below. To move ‘up’, in this sense, is to move from an activity to reflection on that activity; to move ‘down’ is to move from reflection to an action that enacts reflection. The levels of action and reflection on action can be seen as the rungs of a ladder. Climbing up the ladder, one makes what has happened at the rung below into an object of reflection. (Schön, 1987: 114)
Therefore, for example, if an individual is having difficulty with an action, such as
Schön’s typical case study of architectural design, then student or teacher need to reflect
on the principles behind their design project in order to move forward, or down the
ladder, by actively testing their ideas or assumptions of the design. By doing so, there is
the potential that they re-frame the problem in such as way as to alleviate the restrictions
that were previously holding them back.
An interesting perspective could now be taken here in terms of outdoor education
and public schooling. If the outdoor education facilitator believes that his or her
profession is incompatible with the public school institution, by Schön’s argument there
is a need for the individual to be able to re-frame such an interaction in order to overcome
their current learning bind. To do so, we would now need to look more closely at the
121
relation between the teacher and student in these two forms of education to suggest
compatibility.
3.3.4 The Interplay Between Student and Instructor
This discussion brings me to my final point on Schön’s work, which is very
important for this portion of the chapter: the relationship between the instructor and
student, and how that can fall into either model I or model II behaviors. Since model I
behavior is defensive in nature, we can see how this would prevent effective instructor-
student relations, as the student may feel challenged by the instructor’s authority, while at
the same time the instructor may feel that the student is resistive or dismissing their
suggestions. However, model II behavior provides the potential to move beyond this, and
Schön has described two elements for effective model II reflection-in-action that can be
used to overcome these learning binds: 1) the ‘willing suspension of disbelief’, and 2)
imitation, and each will now be discussed.
In considering that the instructor has an expertise and experience that the student
does not (which can be used as a form of authority), it is important to consider if the
student will accept what the instructor has to offer in terms of knowledge either blindly as
‘fact’ or by reflecting on the new ideas presented to him or her. In order for the student to
successfully reflect on what the instructor has to offer in terms of knowledge, he or she
must first be willing to suspend disbelief to accept for the moment the instructor’s
framing of the experience. Once the student accepts what the instructor has to offer in
terms of knowledge, then that student would be able to re-frame his or her own situation
122
in its context. But such an interaction cannot take place with model I behaviors because it
places the student in a more vulnerable position.
[The student] becomes dependent on his instructors. He must look to them for help in acquiring understanding, direction, and competence. As he willingly suspends disbelief, he also suspends autonomy – as though he were becoming a child again. (Schön, 1987: 95)
In this case, Schön argues that the suspension of autonomy and disbelief is necessary but
also must be temporary. Once the student has re-framed the problem in terms of the
instructor’s understanding, then they have provided themselves another avenue of
reflection. However, if they continually maintain a lack of autonomy, then the student
does not learn to reflectively re-frame the problem.
The second point deals with imitation. Schön argues that our society in particular
has an espoused theory that distains imitation as a method of instruction that hinders the
development of individualization in the student, although we often have a theory-in-use
that behaves in such a way. Yet, he argues that imitation is not a bad thing so long as it is
used to model actions on which the student later develops the ability to reflect and re-
frame. By doing so, he sees imitation as being a critical component in the instructor /
student relationship:
Imitative reconstruction of an observed action is a kind of problem solving… Problem solving may take the form of successive differentiations of a global gesture or of learning to string together component actions. The imitator has access to observation of the process and of the product and may regulate his selective construction by reference to either or both of these. When the process of imitation is interactive, the demonstrator’s reactions can also regulate the constructive process. (Schön, 1987: 109)
Imitation would involve risk-taking behavior in the public sphere where the student
attempts to model the skill set of his or her instructor. By conditioning this skill set it
123
provides the student with another frame of reference that could potentially allow them to
overcome a learning bind he or she encounters. For example, when an athlete learns a
different way or tactic in playing their sport from a coach, he or she can now re-frame a
game situation that allows for a successful solution based on this new skill set.
It is interesting to note a similarity between Schön’s idea of imitation and willing
suspension of disbelief to that of Foucault’s notion of increased docility increasing utility.
By imitation and allowing one to be willingly guided by an instructor, the student
suspends their autonomy in order to gain a re-framing of problem sets in order to
overcome a learning bind. Since this aligns nicely with how Foucault sees the use of
institutional power and control, one could argue that model II reflection-in-action is
possible through the use of imitation and the willing suspension of disbelief in an
institution that predominately operates as a model I setting.
To conclude this brief overview of some of Schön’s work, we have seen the
importance for individuals to use model II behaviors in order to successfully establish
sound group relations that do not rely on defensive means of practice. By doing so, this
allows individuals to re-frame problem sets and move away from the dependence on
technical rationality and perform reflective action on tacit knowledge through a form of
professional artistry.
124
3.4 Implications for Outdoor Education in Public Schooling
Let us consider the following quote pertaining to the public school system:
The efficient transmission of knowledge requires a system of controls. The teacher is supposed to convey standard units of knowledge to large numbers of students and must employ measures, in the form of quizzes and examinations, and more informal means, students are rewarded for their ability to demonstrate that they have digested the appropriate knowledge and skill, and they are punished for their failure to do so… Teachers are also subject to a similar system of controls. They are monitored, and rewarded or punished, according to the measures of their students’ progress. And just as teachers function as centers of instruction and control in relation to students who are peripheral to them, so teachers occupy peripheral roles in relation to their supervisors. Curriculum and lesson plans, as well as measures of performance and rewards and punishments, emanate from a center and are imposed on teachers at the periphery… In the control of both students and teachers, a high priority is placed on objectivity. It is considered important to achieve quantitative measures of proficiency and progress which are independent of individual judgments. These are much preferred to qualitative, narrative accounts of the experience of learning or teaching. Quantitative measures permit the system of control, and the other systems that depend on it, to take on an appearance of consistency, uniformity, precision, and detachment.
Although one may easily first believe that this quote was from Foucault, it was in fact
written by Schön (1983: 330). In this quote, he considered that systems which operate in
model I behaviors utilize technical rationality in a process that allow for problem solving
rather than problem framing. By considering reflection-in-action, as outlined in my first
chapter of this thesis, Schön proposed this as a mechanism for transitioning from model I
to model II behavior. What is interesting to note, also described in Chapter One of this
thesis, is a similarity in the pedagogy of experiential education using an action/reflection
component for learning and how this can potentially relate to Schön’s ideas of reflective
practice. Though experiential education theory does not explicitly state this, it can be
argued that by its very focus on the importance of reflection that it provides a solid case-
study in itself for the understanding of Schön’s theories of reflection-in-action. As such,
125
this can imply that experiential education would also be a good case-study for the
transitioning between model I and model II behavior. Therefore, if we accept the need to
transition to a reflective practice that uses model II behaviors, we should, at the very
least, consider experiential and outdoor education as one such means.
Also, it is important to note that incorporating imitation and the willing
suspension of disbelief into the model of experiential education, one can further reinforce
how experiential outdoor education can follow an institutional setting conducive to
Foucault’s idea of power structures, while at the same time provide a point of reflective
practice that allows for the potential transitioning between model I and model II
behaviors. As such, by considering both the role of the institution and the role of the
educator or facilitator, I would suggest that there are sound linkages between outdoor
education and public schooling in the methodology of framing their pedagogy. Even
though many outdoor educators have an espoused theory that pits the goals of their
profession in opposition to that of public schooling, in terms of the emancipation of the
individual against mainstream or conventional society, I have argued that the frameworks
for both systems are indeed compatible. Here they both operate under similar, although
structurally different, mechanisms of control, and that it becomes the educator or
facilitator that enables the opportunity for authentic reflection-in-action.
However, from this argument an interesting point does arise. If we acknowledge
that experiential outdoor education has a greater focus in its theory and pedagogy for
incorporating a reflection and action synergy than does the typical school classroom, then
it could be argued that, at the very least, this form of education has the potential to more
easily shift or coach individuals from a defensive model I type of group behavior to the
126
more collaborative model II dynamic. It is therefore unsurprising that we find outdoor
education being used in many cases where there is a need to re-frame one’s social
concept, be it for therapeutic recovery, at-risk juvenile offenders, or corporate executive
programs, all of which have long histories of use in this field.
Let us now re-consider the public school. In Chapter Two of this thesis, I
discussed the need for sustained exposure to outdoor education in order to promote the
transference of skills through a metaphoric model of experiential learning. As such, I
have suggested that this exposure is possible through the incorporation of outdoor
education in the public school system, and that from the discussion of this current chapter
that the two systems of education are compatible. However, now let us consider what
outdoor education can bring to the public school setting. By considering outdoor
education using a reflection-in-action pedagogy that attempts to transition individuals to a
model II type of group behavior, then this becomes a wonderful case-study for public
school education to re-frame their understanding of how to develop critical-thinking
curricula. That is to say, by schools engaging in a willing suspension of disbelief in the
running of outdoor education programs they enable the opportunity to use these programs
through imitation for exploring and defining the very characteristics of reflective practice
and learning upon which Schön built his theories. Therefore, outdoor education can offer
more to the school system than simply the benefits of it as an isolated program. It leaves
us with this question: can outdoor education alleviate a potential learning bind in creating
reflective learners by re-framing how the school system designs effective curricula? In
attempting to answer this question Freire’s idea of praxis is again brought to mind –
reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it. If we suggest for the
127
moment that everything Freire proposed for his notion of praxis is correct, then we can
view outdoor education as the metaphoric student with the ability to empower itself to
transform the way in which we have come to view the existing school structure.
Having outlined the theory of experiential education, the practice of outdoor
education, and the compatibility between this epistemology and the operation of public
schools, in the next chapter I will now examine more detailed discussions on the
interaction of outdoor education programs currently in the public school setting. I will
provide overviews of the various issues that arise with such blending of professions, and
then in Chapter Five describe significant case studies of the Australia and New Zealand
school systems that have officially regulated outcome based curriculum in outdoor
education, while comparing this curricular method in Chapter Six with Canadian
integrated outdoor programs that focus more on a thematic teaching approach for
curriculum delivery.
128
Chapter 4 – Outdoor Education as Praxis for Schools
4.1 Potential Interplay of Outdoor Education in the Classroom
Throughout the previous chapters detailing experiential and outdoor education, I
have included many features of both practice and theory that play pivotal roles and have
been influential to the evolution of this field. This includes such issues as the
fundamental relationship between action and reflection, student-construction of
knowledge through experience, the role of the teacher as facilitator actively bringing
forward expertise rather than being a passive observer, the use of surprise or discrepant
events to initiate reflection, and the use of flow state to engage learners in order to
become successful reflective practitioners. From this, I will now consider whether the
public school system has anything it can draw out from such a conversation for
consideration in its own learning environment and practice. When one examines all of
these issues, it can easily be argued that they go beyond the realm of experiential
education and simply represent good teaching practices. Although this may be true, by
having demonstrated the synergy between experiential and outdoor education, it could
also be argued that the study of outdoor education provides the best case-study for
teachers to model such practices and for students to grow from such interactions. It
therefore becomes important to ensure that the design of experiential pedagogy has a
solid educational framework on which to build. And for this, it has been suggested that
outdoor education potentially offers the best demonstration of how experiential education
can be properly integrated into learning, thus providing possibly the best structure for the
continuation of such practice (Chapman, McPhee & Proudman, 1992). From this, it can
129
be seen that outdoor education has a potential critical role to play in the public education
system, and not only in terms of how public education can enhance the overall prolonged
transference of outdoor education, but in what outdoor education has to bring to public
education.
Many outdoor educators have felt the need for this strong connection between
outdoor education and the pubic school system: both practitioners and philosophers have
written on how outdoor education curriculum should be developed (Horwood, 1995a;
Lindsay & Ewert, 1999); the increased need of teacher education for such programs
(Raffan, 1995); how student learning can be enhanced (McKiernan, 1995); and how
experiential education can relate to traditional classrooms (Coleman, 1995; Ives &
Obenchain, 2006). There has even been a paper examining the political necessities of
working with the various interest groups in order to advance outdoor education (Miner,
1993). There has also been an initial examination of the way in which training curriculum
could be constructed to achieve these goals (Sakofs, et al, 1995). Although the
combination of outdoor education within public schooling is still somewhat controversial
(Puk, 1999b; Wurdinger, 1999), in the previous chapter discussions of this thesis one may
see the value of trying to push these boundaries.
Outdoor education, regardless of its actual defined environment or particular skill
set for any one program, would still generally attempt to impact student engagement
using an experiential learning model. This situation can be described as the following:
The student experiences a state of disequilibrium by being placed in a novel setting and a cooperative environment while being presented with unique problem solving situations. These situations may lead to feelings of accomplishment which are augmented by processing the experience which promotes generalization and transfer for future life endeavors. (Nadler & Luckner, 1992: 9)
130
Such a statement should have the opportunity to connect to the public school system. At
the very least, cooperative environments, unique problem solving situations, feelings of
accomplishment, and transfer of future life skills are typically espoused theories of
achievement in any school setting, with many teachers and administrators attempting to
implement the best pedagogy in order to make such learning successful. Outdoor
education has the potential to model such a learning environment for school systems as it
has been stated that “the principles of Expeditionary Learning, closely related to the
philosophy of Outward Bound, form a process that is transferable to other educational
settings” (McKiernan, 1995: 165). What may contrast the typical school setting is not
only the actual learning environment itself but in how the student responds and interacts
with their surroundings. “In this framework [of experiential learning], students can be
highly involved in designing their own content, determining how to learn the desired
material, and assessing their progress” (McKiernan, 1995: 147). Often schools and
teachers attempt to create learning environments that promote leadership roles for their
students. But these roles may be created in the realm of learning outcomes without
having the students becoming responsible for their own learning. For example, a student
may be given a single-loop learning opportunity by being assigned a ‘leadership’ role in,
say, a science classroom debate on global warming. But this is very different from a
student taking a true leadership role and with double-loop learning attempting to define
how global warming issues should shape their science classroom discussions. Therefore,
“a sense of commitment is developed by the students who become actively involved in
their own educations” (McKiernan, 1995: 166). Again, such a consideration of student
131
leadership references much of what Freire and Shor discussed in terms of empowering
education (Shor, 1992).
In outlining how outdoor education has a direct focus and emphasis on such skills
and interactions, I would argue that this form of learning and engagement has much to
bring to the public school debate.
Many calls for reform of MS [mainstream education] have been critical of the non-humanistic values inherent in the system and have called for practices that would promote a more humanistic approach. EE [experiential education], with its longstanding humanist traditions and its focus on individual growth within a broader social and civic framework, would speak directly to this segment of the current education reform debate. (Lindsay & Ewert, 1999: 17)
This is not to say that we should simply abandon our current teaching practices; such an
either/or stance would be in opposition to Dewey’s fundamental claim in developing
progressive education. Instead, we need to consider a realm or segment within public
schools that can be best met with the use of outdoor and experiential education, while at
no time sacrificing such skill sets as reading, grammar, and math. Arguably, however,
outdoor education may even provide avenues for all these forms of traditional education
topics. Thus much consideration must be taken in determining not only how but where
outdoor education can or should be utilized in a public school. This contextualizing of
outdoor education in public schools will be discussed in great detail in Chapter Five, as
curriculum, and in Chapter Six, as pedagogy. By making these key distinctions in the
how and the where that outdoor education has in the potential to play out in public
schools, I will suggest that we can better refine our understanding of the dynamic
interaction that would be necessarily involved in such an amalgamation. Yet, in order to
do so it is first important to critically examine possible barriers and opposition to such a
132
suggestion, as well as establishing key principals that outdoor education can bring to
public education from which it can benefit. That is to say, if we are to suggest that the
incorporation of outdoor education into public schools is beneficial to student learning it
would then be necessary to explore limitations that have hindered such an interaction
from becoming prevalent in our current system of public education, as well as providing
support for such a synergy of systems.
4.1.1 Opposition to Integration
Any discussion on the integration of outdoor education with public schools would
be unbalanced without considering those who seem opposed to such an interaction. Later
in this chapter I will discuss practical and logistical barriers that may impede the
development of outdoor education in schools, but here we will consider possible
incompatibilities in fundamental views of each system’s pedagogical approach. However,
such a discussion will not be as strong a comparison as one would like for this topic
because, at least in the literature (even if it is in contrast to many outdoor education
facilitator’s verbal espoused theories), there tends to be a large weighting to those who
view these systems as compatible (Wurdinger, 1999). When I later discuss the barriers to
outdoor education, I will argue how some in this field may confuse barriers with an
incompatibility of systems, and thus focus too much on obstacles that they feel can make
such integration ‘impossible’ or impracticable. For now, having previously compared the
institution and the role of the educator in both outdoor education and public schools, we
will now briefly consider their pedagogy, as this generally tends to be the conceptual area
that those opposed to such combination of systems focus on as the contentious issue.
133
Lindsay and Ewert (1999) attempted to compare and contrast experiential
education (EE) to that of mainstream education (MS). Here they examined key features
of both educational systems and came up with, what they believed, where fundamental
differences between the two systems. This included 1) origins and foundations, 2)
educational goals, 3) concepts of knowledge, 4) organization of students, 5)
communication methods, 6) organization of topics, 7) resources for teaching, and 8)
evaluation strategies. From these differences they concluded that EE should remain apart
from MS. Note that some of their ideas will resurface once again when we consider
barriers to implementation further on in this chapter. Also, a larger discussion will be
placed on evaluation strategies later on in this thesis, as much debate has attempted to
bridge how assessment tools are used in outdoor education and public school.
In formulating these key distinctive features of the two systems the authors
considered the educational framework of each as a whole:
What is clear in comparing EE and MS is how these two traditions fundamentally differ in a variety of ways. MS is directed by criteria external to the learner and defined by the larger society. It is characterized by strategies that direct and measure student performance according to normative values. It depends on views, knowledge, and learning that are relatively compartmentalized. In stark contrast are some of the qualities of EE. These include the attempt to individualize, rather than normalize, student learning and evaluation. In general, EE views both knowledge and learning as fundamentally holistic, while not denying certain occasions where specific skill development is needed and appropriate. (Lindsay & Ewert, 1999: 16)
One difficulty with such a conclusion, however, may derive when considering goods-
external-to-practice versus goods-internal-to-practice (as defined by McIntyre, 1984).
Here Lindsay & Ewert have defined mainstream education as “directed by criteria
external to the learner and defined by the larger society”, and although there can be a
134
great deal of agreement with this statement, it is necessary to consider how such an
interchange can exist in both systems of education. For example, a classroom student
may become so engrossed by a particular piece of literature that they reflectively move
beyond the base requirements of what the school system wishes for them to learn, often
exhibiting behaviors similarly outlined to being in a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), yet at the same time one can think of a student disengaged by a
paddling expedition because they do not ‘get it’ or understand any relevancy it has to
them as a person. As such, the general comparison of outdoor versus mainstream
education may not be fair, but the point certainly poses perhaps a better probability of
what they consider differentiating the two. Essentially this comes back to the notion of
students being ‘empty vessels’ that must be guided towards their own education
(mainstream education) instead of actively and reflectively shaping it (outdoor
education). Therefore, it might even be possible to argue that this position could actually
help to reinforce the use of outdoor education in public schools as a way to re-frame
typical understanding of the practice, as I have proposed in the previous chapter of this
thesis.
From their position, the authors go on to consider the potential damage that might
be done in attempting to integrate the two, and they do so by considering the detriment to
the outdoor education field.
We have concerns that EE activities such as ropes courses will be adopted into MS settings without the necessary understanding of the foundations and underlying processes that guide these activities. In this case, we suspect that much of the value to individual students from such activities could be diminished and the subsequent perceived efficacy of these learning activities placed in jeopardy. (Lindsay & Ewert, 1999: 18)
135
Of course, this argument must speak true for any form of education or pedagogical
approach that is not properly understood by its facilitator and hence has the chance to
decrease the learning potential of the student. For example, one could even consider that
a student can develop better rote memorization skills if their teacher is better versed in
the understandings and practices of traditional education. The correlation between the
foundations and underlying processes with the efficacy of learning activities can not be
isolated to the field of outdoor education incorporated into public schools, as it reaches
into every pedagogical approach of education and is maintained as an important
consideration.
For the most part though, it must be stressed that potential differences certainly
exist between outdoor and mainstream education, and at the very least we must be aware
of the debate in order to frame and justify any arguments that would be in favor of such
integration. What is also important to consider is how we frame such differences: do they
create a fundamental incompatibility between the two systems, or simply introduce a
barrier or learning bind that must be understood if to be overcome? As such, with this
discussion on the opposition for the integration of outdoor experiential education in
public schools it would now be important to consider one possible counter argument.
From here, I will then return to many of the issues presented by Lindsay and Ewert in a
discussion that helps to distinguish between potential incompatibilities between outdoor
education and public schools versus barriers to integration.
136
4.1.2 Schooling Roles in Society
Like Lindsay and Ewert’s paper suggesting that outdoor education should remain
apart from mainstream education, James Coleman (1995) has articulated an argument for
the reason that public schools are in need of experiential education (and as I would
further argue, outdoor education based on it being such a great case-study for this form of
learning). Coleman compared schooling and society of today to previous generations,
using a particular example of when David Copperfield grew up in England. Here he
reflected on the fact that the creativity of Copperfield was not hindered by the traditional
methods of his schoolings because as a child he had a more varied experience base to
draw from.
For children of his time and experience, the narrow concentration of the school provided supplementary information that enriched, and could be assimilated by, the base of existing experience. The school of today is in the same role for some children, but for most children, two changes have occurred: there is a multitude of other media outside the school, from books to newspapers to television, to supply information which bypasses experience; and there is, for many of these children, only a weak experiential base on which to build. (Coleman, 1995: 125)
Here he considered that traditional schooling had the function to enhance a student’s
experience, but never move to actually replace it, thus becoming complementary to the
life experience of the child by providing some ‘formal’ learning. “For the school has
always existed to provide a set of auxiliary skills and supplementary knowledge, to
augment the basic skills and knowledge the child gains through experience” (Coleman,
1995: 125). In modern times, he sees too many opportunities where children are able to
bypass experience, such as with television or the internet. How often do parents need to
remind young children that something they see on television wouldn’t be real? If this
bypassing of experience was occurring too often it results in a weak experiential base to
137
draw conclusions (perhaps even reflections) from. The similarity between this and the
view of Kurt Hahn is strong, by considering the value of experience for the development
of youth, but we might consider that Coleman has brought this discussion even a step
further.
This then, is one goal, one function, of experiential learning: the creation of a solid experience base, in one’s own life, for the very symbolic media that are subsequently used to transmit information bypassing experience. It needs hardly be said that only if these experiential foundations are strong – whether they are built in the home or by an extensive use of school time in play with language, games with printed words, or in still another way – only then can language and reading serve as the vehicle by which information that bypasses experience can be assimilated. (Coleman, 1995: 127)
That is to say, Coleman argues that the use of ‘formal’ educational skills, such as reading
and grammar, provides a means to bypass experience. For example, by reading a user
manual for some form of electronics I would be able to operate the device even though I
had gained no prior experience of it from which to build upon. Such a function of
bypassing experience, he argues, has enabled each of us in a society to be able to
accomplish more than one lived experience would allow, and many of us would view this
as a good thing in of itself. But he also believed that such a form of bypassing experience
still requires a solid experience base of which to draw from, and thus increase the
learning retention of new facts. For example, a child may be able to construct the concept
of a wooly mammoth or dinosaur only in the context of a lived experience where they
relate this information to that of other large animals they have seen. How many children
can describe how they think a mammoth would walk even though they have never
witnessed this? Would this view be different from another child who has never seen a
138
four-legged mammal? This is why he viewed an interconnectivity between experience
and supplementary information that could bypass experience.
Since Coleman, like others such as Hahn, sees our society become increasingly
experience poor, he asserts possibly the most important positive point for the integration
of experiential education with public schooling:
But it has come to be time to recognize that for many young persons, there is a vacuum outside the school, devoid of such intense experiences that gives one self-knowledge. And it has come to be time to design learning environments, whether in school or in another setting, that contain those experiences that move one along the path to self-knowledge. (Coleman, 1995: 128)
That is to say, if we consider that society has shifted to a more experience-poor
environment, dependant on supplementary stimuli such as media and television, does this
not potentially hinder the construction of self-knowledge through lived experience that
allows for reflection and re-framing of one’s own understanding? Here Coleman believed
that experience by-passing did not allow for growth in self-knowledge, an aspect that I
might suggest is similar in scope to the inter- and intrapersonal development established
in Chapter One of this thesis for experiential education. Such interactions, and through
them self-knowledge, may not be as accessible through means that by-pass lived
experience.
Therefore, by such an argument, it can be considered that outdoor education can
provide a solid experience base in which to allow mainstream schools to supplement their
current experience-bypassing knowledge, but also to actually enhance the learning
retention of such knowledge. Yet this is possible only if such base experiences are
offered in some other form, as they are now, arguably, weakened or void in many
children’s lives. From this, outdoor education could certainly fill such a role. Thus the
139
question arises: does the current public schooling system need to move more to a realm
of experience building when once there was a time that such educational systems
assumed children were coming to their schools equipped with such backgrounds? If so,
with outdoor education and its base epistemology centered on experiential education, we
might consider this a solid possibility for integration.
But in doing so, this may generate many logistical and practical considerations
that may hinder such a development. As such, if we consider the value of integration of
outdoor education with public schools, we must also be aware that obstacles would
naturally arise, and at times may make it appear that such integration might be impossible
or impractical. By offering Coleman’s work as one possible solid counterpoint to Lindsay
and Ewert (1999) for a need of experiential education in public schools on the basis of
pedagogy, it is now important to return to their discussion on differences between these
two forms of education. However, what I will argue here is that, unlike Lindsay and
Ewert who view possible issues as incompatibilities, many of these may represent only
barriers to integration.
140
4.2 Barriers to Integration
Our comparison of EE and MS illustrates the marked differences between these two educational traditions and suggests one reason why EE has not found ready acceptance in MS. (Lindsay & Ewert, 1999: 17)
The issue of acceptance for outdoor education in mainstream schooling is not
straightforward. Although compatibility between these two educational systems can, and
most likely always will, be debated, there also underlies this argument certain logistical
considerations that may shift the balance of such deliberation. For example, is it
sufficient to say that most outdoor education experiences require more time than the
typical classroom block allows, but to then assume outdoor education can not be
integrated in the school system as reaching too far with one’s conclusions? Obviously
such a simple situation can be solved by considering, for example, one-day out-of-school
trips, but it provides the context that educators need to engage in double-loop learning
and reframe their existing understanding of school structure and procedures in order to
assimilate any new learning approach. Of course, such practice is often easier said than
done, and the act of implementation generates barriers to integration.
When teachers were introduced to experiential education, they loved it. They loved the activities, the underlying values, as well as the educational impact on the individual and group regarding personal growth, the acquisition of academic content through flexible and multisensory learning strategies. Unfortunately, another truth was apparent as well. Time, inflexible administrative structures and well-established routines individually and collectively eroded the enthusiasm for experiential education simply because it was often easier to go with what was than to fight the battles required to change things. (Sakofs, et al, 1995: 128)
At this stage in the discussion it can be acknowledged that there are many small issues
that can generate large barriers to integration, such as timetabling considerations or
financial limitations of a school. However, I will guide this dialogue to focus on more
141
dynamic or complex factors that must take into account different approaches and
understanding in order to deal with learning binds. This is not to dismiss the potential that
a great outdoor education program may be stalled because of key ‘simple’ logistics, such
as transportation issues, but that they do not fall under the category of what I would call
‘guiding principles’ that shape and direct the energies of outdoor education and public
schooling. In particular, I would like to provide an overview of such larger issues that can
generate barriers, including assessment tools and strategies, political infrastructure of
schools, certifications versus qualification, and potential needs for teacher preparation
and training.
4.2.1 Assessment Dynamics
The role of assessment in schools is a major part of the institution, and as
Foucault would argue to all societal relationships. Thus for the potential integration of
outdoor education in public schools, notions of assessment become a key pillar for any
discussion. When one considers the role of assessment in outdoor education and public
schools, it would be possible to argue that each approach represents a fundamental shift
in pedagogy that perhaps still generates a case for incompatibility as previously
discussed. However, if we wish to use outdoor education as actual praxis for schools, as
“reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire, 1970: 51), then we
need to consider not only how we might be able to align assessment methods and the
value for such roles, but also use assessment strategies of outdoor education to re-frame
existing concepts in the school system on that very issue. To do this we must first
consider how each system utilizes assessment.
142
The problem is even greater when one considers the unique treatment given to student failure found in experience-rich settings. Events that go wrong, which might be rated as failures in another school’s context, are treated as valuable occasions for learning. … Reframing error from being something shameful and discreditable into a natural occasion for further exploration is a wonderful feature of those practices which we call ‘experiential’. (Horwood, 1995a: 283)
From this quote we can reflect on perhaps one of the biggest barriers to
integration: fundamentally, the two educational systems utilize failure differently. School
can be seen essentially as corrective (a term also used by Foucault). Thus, the assessment
strategies in schools are developed to identify learning weaknesses in order to provide
further reinforcing practice until the student corrects their understanding of a topic. By
critiquing mistakes or learning-gaps as failures, students in the school system quickly
identify that ‘success’ relates to the correct answer (or the answer that the teacher is
looking for). In contrast, the theory of experiential education embraces mistakes as the
finest opportunity for student learning. By many named concepts, from the discrepant
event to learning moments to re-framing a learning bind, errors in performance allow a
student to rework with material, be it an activity or concept, in such a way as to re-frame
their own understanding of how it relates to those other parameters with which it is
intertwined. Errors provide the avenue for exploration, and exploration provides the path
to reflection, where reflection is ultimately used to re-frame, and learn the material at
hand.
Of course not all public schooling is ‘traditional’ by any means, as is seen with
such practices as progressivism and constructivism. In a way, the issue of differences in
assessment strategies becomes pragmatic; students need to be exposed to more
experiential education in order to develop the sense that success is not the avoidance of
143
failure, but in this very process opportunities would need to be established that allows for
this greater exposure. However, fundamentally it is not as simple as to say ‘give students
experiences that nurture failure’ because assessment based against failure would still be
the predominate method utilized by schools. Thus, outdoor education would have to
employ skills and strategies that allows for an assessment method that meets the criteria
of the school while at the same time allowing for student growth from the very failures
that they might be graded against.
Despite these pragmatic, creative, and valuable methods [discussed in this book], they are still essentially stunts being played on the pervasive and oppressive reliance on grades. Experiential teachers have yet to come to grips with this central issue. Grades or marks determined by conventional testing and examination are inimical to experiential education. It is not possible, using these devices, to discover what each individual student has learned from their school experiences. Neither is it possible to discover what collective or communal learning there may have been. … The delightful thing about the writers in this book is that they have found ways, in various degrees of subversion, to live with the problem. (Horwood, 1995a: 284)
Horwood then goes on to argue that assessment strategies can move beyond ‘subversion’
and attempt to create genuine analysis of the student’s learning potential.
It is instructive to examine a form of report developed by Kurt Hahn for use in his schools. Hahn did not shy away from the evaluative process, but he did put it into the broad framework of human development which he wished his schools to promote. (Horwood, 1995a: 285)
This links well to terminology that is currently in heavy circulation within schools: the
use of formative evaluation versus summative assessment. It could be argued that in
schools this has simply become a terminology game, and that teachers are still doing the
same thing under a different label. However, if we consider the differences established
between typical outdoor education and public schools, then one can argue that the
shifting to formative evaluation from summative assessment is a similar approach being
144
attempted in schools where the focus hopes to be on student success and abilities rather
than learning weaknesses. Thus outdoor education may be able to assist with the public
school’s emphasis on ‘authentic assessment and evaluation’.
The difficulty now arises in the field of education and schools when individuals
have an underlying belief that by focusing on formative evaluation, often thought of as
assessing higher order cognitive functions, that this weakens more traditional forms of
information assimilation, or what is typically considered low order cognitive skills. It is
even more difficult when, in a model I type of world, this goes on untested in the public
domain. This dilemma between balancing such things as critical thinking skills with base
learning skills is not something new for the public school system, but it is an important
one to consider when framing the potential interaction of outdoor education within such a
learning environment.
Teachers choose time-efficient delivery models of instruction (e.g., lecture) over instructional models that promote critical thinking, problem-solving, and inquiry (e.g., experiential education-based models). Studies report that teachers abandon innovative, active, and higher order experiences in favor of rote memorization and drill, believing this is the wise course of action for testing, although not necessarily for student learning. (Ives & Obenchain, 2006: 63)
This consideration is important in terms of examining outdoor education, which
typically has a pedagogy with greater focus on higher order thinking skills, and thus may
develop opposition within the public school that operate a theory-in-action of focus on
base learning skills. It is not sufficient to say that outdoor education would promote
higher order thinking skills unless one could support that doing so would not impede
other educational objectives of the school. The question then becomes;
Are there instructional options for those teachers who believe that classroom learning should be more experiential, higher order, thoughtful,
145
connected to the community, and student-driven, but are aware that their students must be successful on measures of lower order thinking? (Ives & Obenchain, 2006: 64)
The study by Ives & Obenchain (2006) examined student performance in higher order
thinking skills (HOTS) and lower order thinking skills (LOTS), both before and after a
designed experiential education program, to that of two control groups that learned
through more traditional means of education. Two main points were determined; they
found an increase in HOTS with experiential education (arguably an obvious statement
based on the literature review of Chapter One of this thesis); but, secondly and more
importantly, there was no significant difference in LOTS between the experiential test
group and the two control groups. They also examined their work with others and found a
similar correlation in results indicating that gains in higher order thinking skills do not
necessarily have to align with a decrease in the development of lower order thinking
skills. An important point to their study is that they particularly examined the use of
experiential education, but then compared this to the performance of control groups, an
aspect that they had found lacking in previous studies.
At the same time, it is gratifying that our findings are consistent with those from other disciplines in showing that students engaged in a curriculum that emphasizes student-directedness and complex problem-solving over focused practice on lower level fact and skill acquisition show a significant advantage in HOTS with no loss in LOTS. (Ives & Obenchain, 2006: 72)
Therefore a shift in assessment strategies with outdoor education focusing on higher
order thinking skills does not preclude its integration with public schools, and arguably
allows strengthening of assessment methodologies.
146
4.2.2 The Political Landscape
If one considers that outdoor education is compatible with the institution and role
of the teacher in public schools, has a value that it can contribute to the school in terms of
experience development for experience-bypassing knowledge, and can enhance
assessment and critical thinking strategies, then one still has to wonder why outdoor
education has not been embraced by all schools. One important consideration may lie
with the notion of the perceived educational goals of the institution.
Of the more than 90 respondents [to this study survey], over three-quarters ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement ‘Internal support for experiential education is a major issue for the profession’. … For these experiential programs the internal ‘jungle’ of the parent institution can be a far more challenging and threatening environment than the outside world. They share a common concern – acquiring internal support for a program that is often seen as a peripheral extra. It is easy to assume that experiential education is denied support because of our non-traditional methodology. However, many programs or activities that are not part of the traditional function of the institution, such as athletics, field study, or conferences, continue to receive strong support. The central reason why experiential programs suffer from lack of support is not our methods, but rather that we are not seen as central to our institution’s mission. (Miner, 1993: 21)
Here Miner has outlined his central premise: the political landscape of the institution
must be understood in order to work with the school rather than an isolated program that
is under constant attack from perception rather than critical assessment of its
performance. It is interesting to note the comparison made with other successful alternate
programs. It is not sufficient to assume a public untested view that outdoor education is
limited in schools because of its differences in pedagogy to that of the ‘standard’
classroom. Such programs as art, music, drama, technology education, physical
education, and others typically represent the majority of funding for a school even though
they do not represent the ‘three R’s of education’ (reading, writing, and arithmetic). In all
147
three schools where I have personally taught, these alternate programs have received ten
times more funding than the science departments. The difference is, Miner argues, that
these programs have demonstrated their value to the governing school rather than
assuming everyone (tacitly) understands their value. Thus outdoor education, in order to
become a successful component in a public school, must consider how the school views
such programs, and more importantly to understand how the two systems can benefit
from one another.
Marketing must reflect the organization’s values and mission in addition to your own. For example, we used to promote our programs with spectacular photographs of rappelling or kayaking. We now use photos which are less dramatic – groups of student practicing a skill, writing in journals or in a group discussion. The setting is still outdoors, with beautiful backdrops, but it is clear that there are academic components. (Miner, 1993: 25)
From this discussion, Miner suggested key features or strategies that are politically
necessary for convincing parent organizations that experiential programs also serve the
mission of the larger institution. They are 1) identifying client groups, 2) learning to
distinguish key players, 3) developing strategic alliances, 4) adapting to the institutional
context (such as described in the previous quote), 5) serving the organization, and 6)
developing financial independence. However, these are more than simple political games;
they represent ideas of how to communicate a program’s value in such a way that it
becomes meaningful to someone who has never been engaged in such an experience.
From this conversation Miner derived an important point: he considered that the
clientele of an outdoor program are not just the students but rather the overall institution.
Here we see a fundamental difference between company-based outdoor education
programs and those present in schools. A company-based program attempts to draw from
148
a group of individuals who, for the most part, must have some degree of acceptance for
such programs (assuming they voluntarily signed up). But in public school, your critical
clientele may not even be the students, for they typically do not have the decision making
power that administrators, school boards, or even parents do. That is not to say that the
students are not critical for the program success, since it is their potential knowledge
growth that drives education, but that others make the decisions that influence how
educators can reach these students. Therefore, by considering the public school as
clientele, it establishes a focus to publicly test the value of such outdoor education
programs in order to gain support. In other words, from Miner’s argument, it can be
suggested that outdoor education programs can strengthen their relationship with public
schools from what currently exists if they enhance communication of their fundamental
educational goals with the school system itself.
4.2.3 Certification versus Qualification
Yet, despite all of this research on integrating with the public school system,
outdoor education continues to have difficulty maintaining any significant footholds in
our schools. Certainly one practical explanation has to do with teacher certification: do
teachers have the required skills and experiences in order to successfully teach such a
dynamic and different topic than what they are accustomed to in public education?
Compounding this question is the dilemma in outdoor education over the value of
certification (Plaut, 2001). Those against certification typically cite the argument that
certification does not necessarily provide a valid means of assessing an individual’s
strengths in judgment and problem solving. Although there is truth in this, it has not
149
stopped most of mainstream society from continuing to push for certification. Although
most professions now require some form of formal degree, most do not relate this to an
immediate growth in judgment, and require intern programs after graduation (for
example, doctors, lawyers, and architects) as well as distinguishing between junior and
senior professionals in their fields. Yet, they all use certification to create a foundation for
their professions. As such, outdoor education might need to consider implementing a
more formal certification structure to further its advance into public education, which
certainly has an emphasis on certification standards. At this point, this conflict of
certification versus qualification is only initially outlined, but its argument will surface
again frequently in the next few chapters, particularly in Chapter Eight which outlines
initiatives taken in this direction.
The possible importance for implementing standardized practices and certification
is not a new issue for the field of outdoor education.
The need for a standardized instructor training course eventually led [Paul] Petzoldt to establish the National Outdoor Leadership School in 1965. While NOLS has traditionally certified graduates of certain of its outdoor leadership training courses, the school has not taken a decisive stance on the issue [of certification]. (Cockrell, 1990: 251)
As any new field grows there will always be a transition point when the argument of
certification versus qualification arises. Even in public schooling, in the recent
generations we have seen the shift from college diplomas to university degrees being
required in order to teach within the classroom, while even many generations ago those
classroom teachers had no formal certification. Yet, in every case when a profession is
growing there has been a value added by the use of certification.
Petzoldt presents two arguments in favor of outdoor leadership certification. First, outdoor recreation in general is experiencing a trend
150
toward greater challenge and risk. … Second, there is a growing sensitivity to the ecological impacts of wildland recreation. (Cockrell, 1990: 252)
Whereas,
Arguments against the certification idea also fall into two general groups. The essence of the first argument is that it would really be impossible to certify a leader to be safe. … [Secondly] the assessment process itself may significantly alter the performance of a certification candidate. Candidates may falsely believe that a test problem has been contrived by the instructor and therefore contains no objective risk. Assessors’ attitudes may artificially intimidate certification candidates or artificially encourage compliance. (Cockrell, 1990: 252)
Here there becomes a rift in understanding of the role that certification can have in
outdoor education programs. On one side, it can be considered that a formal certification
process can provide a background knowledge and context of issues surrounding a
profession. On the other side, it can be considered that a formal certification process can
not provide judgment skills that seem best developed through experience. Of course the
question should now be asked if these two aspects can really be separated. Can a
certification process provide individuals with a solid foundation of knowledge in the field
without assuming it must somehow provide experience-rich judgment skills? What is still
important to stress when considering the value of certification is not to assume that any
training program would completely replace the need for experience.
Even though degree-granting programs arguably provide one appropriate venue for vocational training, it is nonetheless true that those with adventure education degrees also need personal expedition or adventure experience in order to compete successfully in the job market. … Ultimately the most desirable candidates have a mix of both institutional training and personal experience. (Plaut, 2001: 136)
However, even more interesting when considering the value of certification for a
profession is the status of the profession itself. Cockrell (1990) discussed literature
151
identifying five essential elements for an occupation’s admission to the status of
‘profession’: 1) a specialized body of knowledge with a high degree of intellectual
content, 2) a recognized educational process and standards for admission to the
profession, 3) a self-imposed code of professional conduct, 4) a motive for service
oriented to the precedence of public interest over personal gain and self interest, and 5) a
recognition of status by persons outside the profession.
Certainly, with the literature so far discussed in this thesis, I would argue that
outdoor education possesses a specialized body of knowledge, and undoubtedly a motive
for service oriented to public interest. But a potential weakness may develop for the case
of considering outdoor education as a profession when examining “a recognized
educational process and standards for admission to the profession”. Without a formalized
governing body that can guide a certification process there becomes no unified ‘voice’ or
agency that can develop the perception of being representative of a ‘profession’. Also,
strengthening this aspect of certification would in turn, I would suggest, strengthen the
recognition of the status by persons outside the profession. This is where the argument of
certification may hold an even greater importance to outdoor education than just the
formal training of instructors and educators; the very acceptance of outdoor education as
a profession by a society that values the certification process.
Academic programs in adventure education provide students with a theoretical framework for concepts that many of us, without academic training in this field, have learned through luck, intuition, or independent study; or have not learned at all. This framework is important for two reasons. First, it equips students of adventure education with the skills they need to be more effective and confident practitioners. … Secondly, students who have studied history and theory will have the framework to be more effective ambassadors and spokespeople both within and outside of our field. (Plaut, 2001: 137)
152
Therefore, certification may hold the key to not only intensification of the knowledge and
competency base in the profession (by working in conjunction with an intern system, not
replacing experience) but also in assisting to justify outdoor education as a profession to
society at large.
Yet, advocates against certification still tend to take the untested view that a
system of certification would decrease the value placed on experience. Recently, work
has been done examining perception versus implementation of certification within
outdoor education programs (Woollven, Allison, Higgins, 2007). After a tragic accident,
Great Britain established the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations in 1996.
The passing of the act itself and the introduction of the AALA were not universally welcomed by the outdoor sector. Considerable disquiet was expressed because of the perception that the AALA had chosen to ignore ‘appropriate experience’ as a measure of instructor suitability and was concentrated instead on NGB standards and awards. (Woollven, Allison, Higgins, 2007: 5)
However, what their study discovered was that after implementation of the licensing
body, most organizations surveyed expressed satisfaction with such interactions. “The
centres and businesses contacted during this study had, on the whole, embraced licensing
favourably and with little if any adverse effect” (Woollven, Allison, Higgins, 2007: 18).
This study drove at the heart of the issue for many in the field who were initially opposed
to formalizing regulations and requirements and felt that certification did not represent
qualification. What was discovered, however, is that once in place the outdoor industry
looked positively to what could be offered to their professional practice. Therefore,
blending certification with experience can benefit outdoor education just like it does for
so many other professions. In the context of public school, which has placed a growing
153
emphasis on certification, any shift in outdoor education for more formalized certification
standards would only assist on its integration into this setting.
In addition, one last point may also be examined in this argument of certification
versus qualification; how we actually frame such considerations. Certification deals with
the individual and in doing so establishes pre-set criteria with which that person has been
‘deemed’ certified. However, if we consider a ‘certification’ of a system or program, than
our frame of reference is now dealing with accreditation. Accreditation contributes to this
argument with the notion that a well-run system recognizes and creates norms that could
compensate for poor leaders, thus considering a value to the group due to a normative
environment. Certainly if a program in outdoor education meets a particular standard of
excellence, then it becomes possible to bring individual leaders up to and maintain this
level of performance. In the realm of outdoor education, where there can be significant
variance among individual programs, the idea of accreditation becomes another important
factor. However, one thing to also consider is that although accreditation is used to a
small degree in the public school system, it is still the certification (and qualification) of
the individual teacher that dominates the discussion, as such things as job placements
have almost nothing to do with a previous school’s accreditation process for the teacher
but rather their own certifications. Therefore, in considering a compatibility of outdoor
education in public schools it is important to frame this discussion in terms of teacher
certification, as this is more dominate over accreditation in the larger institution.
154
4.2.4 Teacher Preparation and Training
The moment one considers the possible need for any certification process, then
this naturally leads to a wide range of questions about how to structure such certification
and what to offer in terms of content. But even before such finer details as this can be
contemplated, fundamentally there must first be a good foundation of programs from
which to draw a unified curricula for professional certification. This factor, however, is
considerably lacking for outdoor and experiential education in the realm of the classroom
teacher. Consider that,
My own experience as a student teacher, and later as a teacher educator, convinced me that there was very little, if any, direct training, study, or practice of experiential methods in the education of most teachers. (Horwood, 1995a: 286)
and that,
There is very little in the teacher education literature that prescribes paths for such [experiential] training, perhaps because there are very few teacher training institutions that offer specific programs for preparing experiential educators. (Raffan, 1995: 117)
In more recent years, there has seemed to be little growth for outdoor experiential
learning in teacher preparation. It can even be argued, based for example on the number
of publications on this issue decreasing over the last few years in the Journal of
Experiential Education [16 key articles between 2001-04 versus only 5 key articles
between 2005-2009, as well as a reduction of associated comments from other semi-
related articles throughout this time, while not observing any increase in such
publications from other journals], that outdoor education has moved emphasis away from
trying to implement its practices in more traditional forms of education systems, such as
the public schools, and back to areas over which they have more direct political control.
155
Of course the issues for this, as previously discussed, could be more to do with barriers
rather than incompatibilities, but nevertheless a shift in the literature is noticeable.
Alternatively, perhaps the increased growth of environmental education programs over
the last few years has overshadowed outdoor education programs, via a closer
connectivity with technical rationality and the sciences, and by a misguided indistinction
between the two forms of programs by society in general.
Yet, many consider this an ideal time to reinforce the need for experiential
education and to really be able to establish this as a transformative method of instruction.
“The formal institutional infrastructure specifically dedicated to the preparation and
training of experiential teachers for the work in schools is young and in the process of
building an image of itself, of its ways, and of its guiding premises” (Raffan, 1995: 118).
What is even more interesting is that Raffan goes on to note:
It is ironic, perhaps, that experiential education has been occurring in formal learning settings since the days of progressive schools and yet the professional discussion has not to date focused to any great extent on the preparation and training of people to conduct experiential education in classrooms. (Raffan, 1995: 118)
This may, however, stem from an even greater issue. The question becomes whether
teachers to any great extent attempt to apply new teaching strategies that are taught in a
training setting or simply go back to the approaches they have been exposed to as being
the most efficient.
Teachers are not likely to implement new approaches that they have learned about in teacher education programs unless their training in new approaches is continuous, large scale, offers incentives, and can be done without a significantly greater time commitment. (Ives & Obenchain, 2006: 73)
156
This very issue was taken up by others (Sakofs, et al, 1995) and they proposed a
feasible training program called the Teacher Development Model for Sustainable
Education Reform [TDMSER]. Here they considered utilizing a five phase system for the
development of experiential teaching skills in education. It involved a linear flow
consisting of 1) immersion (training), 2) skill building (training), 3) skill demonstration
(main), 4) creating and using curriculum (final) and 5) constructing networking and
support (final). This linear flow focused on what the authors considered a model of
“thaw-shift-praxis”. That is to say, first teachers would have to reframe their views of
effective teaching methods to now include experiential education; the “thaw” or training
aspect. This would then be followed by practicing these new skills and theories in a
controlled training environment; the “shift” or main component of the development
model. Finally, teachers would take these newly learned skills and implement them into
their existing classrooms to transform their educational practice; the “praxis” or final
stage of the model.
It [TDMSER] is a practical way of conceptualizing a teacher development seminar as its phase structure identifies essential elements and sequencing of events that enable teachers to learn, internalize, test and practice experiential methods, and to create support systems that can sustain educational innovation in schools. (Sakofs, et al, 1995: 132)
Of course, a greater difficulty in offering such transformative experiential-based
training programs deals with their consistency and longevity. As with any professional
field that is still in its relative infancy stage, where establishment of a governing body for
the profession has yet to occur, the reliability of a uniformed teaching base (certification
or ‘credentials’) becomes a key factor in stabilizing the view of the field as a profession.
That is to say, without a universalized, accepted outdoor education training program for
157
teachers, each individual program that attempts this will vary from the next, and also vary
within itself as semesters progress and external factors play out around it.
One of the oldest Canadian teacher education programs involving outdoor experiential education has been offered by Queen’s University, Faculty of Education… However, it has changed over time, changes I would suggest that mostly have to do with financial pressures, personnel and safety issues. (Puk, 1999b: 181)
Of the many factors that can influence the progression of these programs, one of the
leading causes for this fluctuation in goals and programming of outdoor education teacher
training certainly has to deal with the availably of experienced educators/facilitators.
One problem with this situation is that the few teacher training programs that offer experiential education depend upon the energies of a few people… This has to be a practical consideration for any administrator in creating such a program. You can always find many qualified people to teach English or physical education, etc., in a tenure track position in a teacher training program. It is not as easy to find people to teach outdoor experiential programs with the same level of qualifications. (Puk, 1999b: 179)
This issue of finding qualified people will come up again when I discuss the role of
existing outdoor education programs currently existing in public schools in the next two
chapters. The difficulty of a profession in its infancy stages develops because of a
‘chicken-or-the-egg’ dilemma. You need knowledgeable instructors with a unified vision
to offer a consistent teacher training program, but in order to get these you need a
consistent and stable training system from which they are to come. Therefore, one might
consider this potentially being the biggest single obstacle for outdoor education to
overcome in order to establish itself as a distinct and recognized profession within
society.
If the profession of adventure education would invest seriously in universities as training vehicles for entering professionals, perhaps a
158
college degree would be the only certification we would really need. (Cockrell, 1990: 260)
Again, not only would a well established training program allow for consistency
and unification in the field of outdoor education, it would also provide a ‘legitimacy’ to
the profession as viewed by the greater society. By addressing how we prepare educators
to work in this field, we can also reframe how the general public may work together with
such a system of experiential education. That is to say, by utilizing existing educational
structures for certification, such as university-based degree-granting programs, outdoor
education can naturally generate a ‘partnership’, where now the greater institution
develops an investment in such a program.
They [training programs] provide skeptics with a framework within which to understand those ‘silly games’ we play. This, in turn, allows our students to more effectively enlist support of potential educational partners, such as teachers and administrators in more traditional schooling systems, and with parents or potential sponsors. It gives them a more persuasive and credible voice in educational reform. (Plaut, 2001: 138)
Where this potential partnership between outdoor education and public schools develops
is in the outdoor education teacher themselves. Being a member of a larger institution,
such as the public school teaching profession, an educator who is trained in experiential
outdoor education methods is able to bridge these theories into current practice. “College
level degree-granting programs represent an opportunity to train practitioners who are
bilingual when it comes to the rhetoric of adventure education and more traditional
schooling methods” (Plaut, 2001: 138). Therefore we might consider the idea that an
outdoor education teacher training program would not only support the enrichment of
experiential education methods in the school system, but also provide an avenue for the
legitimacy of outdoor education as a profession by linking said curricula with existing
159
teaching institutions. I will return to this conversation once we have examined more in-
depth the next element needed to consider outdoor education praxis for public schools:
the method of delivery for such programs. It is by considering how outdoor education is
used, or can be, in schools that will allow us to properly frame how a teacher training
program may manifest itself to serve the needs of both the field of outdoor education and
the public school institution.
160
4.3 Educational Frameworks for Modeling Outdoor Education in Schools
When one considers how outdoor education can be utilized and integrated into the
public school system there are many ways in which to view such interaction. I will
propose that we can consider three generalized methods of delivery for this to occur.
These I will call 1) supplementary outdoor programming, 2) curricula-based outdoor
programming, and 3) integrated outdoor programming. (Technically, there would be a
fourth method one might consider and that is extracurricular outdoor programming or
school ‘leisure’ pursuits, but this type of interaction requires no pedagogical balancing
between forms and thus will not be considered here.) These generalized methods differ
from each other in terms of duration of exposure, integration with existing curriculum,
and thematic context or emphasis. Each will be briefly outlined here in this section, and
then I will draw more specific examples and case studies from the literature as well as
present new research for this conversation in later chapters.
Supplementary outdoor programming can be considered the ‘one-off’ programs
used by schools to expose student to concepts and experiences in outdoor education.
Simple examples such as a school hiking trip may focus solely on the outdoor experience
itself in terms of value, or link the outing with current school-based curricula. The
importance to the expedition would be that, in some way, it supplements or enhances
school objectives currently in focus for the students. The example of the hiking trip may
be used in a specific course such as science for the study of biodiversity or to survey
principles of ecological impacts to a sample site, or it may be more general in outcomes
for the school such as an expedition to encourage trust and teamwork amongst students.
One important characteristic of what I define as supplementary outdoor programming is
161
its duration: typically these experiences are isolated within themselves. There may be
overlap in the school, which would strengthen such experiences, either as preliminary
discussions or the essential de-brief sessions that allow students the opportunity to
reframe their understanding based on the expedition. However, supplementary outdoor
programming would tend to be isolated from one activity to the next. Flow or
connections between various activities may be planned but are weak at best, as each has
its own defining outcome and goals specific to that activity.
It can be easily argued that this form of outdoor education is the predominate
method of delivery currently used in the school system, and thus its impact should not be
underestimated. However, my discussion on outdoor education in public schools will not
address this delivery approach in any great detail because such a method of delivery
makes it challenging, at the least, to distinguish the ultimate goals behind such an
activity. The espoused theory of any program should be in curriculum enrichment, either
in specific outcomes (such as the sciences) or general outcomes (such as communication
skills). Since schools are based on curriculum outcomes, any one-off program must be
able to speak in these terms. The difficulty arises in the theory-in-use of possible
supplemental outdoor programs: are their goals centered on school outcomes or their own
agendas? For example, when a class goes on a hiking expedition was this activity planned
with the curriculum outcomes established first and the program developed to meet these
goals, or was the hiking trip designed first and then attempted to be linked with existing
outcomes? The importance to this is that if expeditions are planned prior to outcome
considerations, as is frequently the case when dealing with an external outdoor education
company or provider, then the value of such a program in terms of how it relates to the
162
school would always be in question. Certainly there are good programs that design
themselves around the needs of the school and the students, but the other programs that
attempt to justify their practice in the terminology of outcomes would also have the same
espoused theory of being derived from curriculum outcomes. That is to say, is an outdoor
activity attempting to justify its existence through connectivity with schools even if its
goals were not genuine to this form? Without being able to clearly distinguish the two
forms, it makes it challenging to discuss outdoor education in public schools in the
context of supplementary outdoor programming without adding in this possible bias. The
interaction between outdoor education and public schools centers on the use and meeting
curricular outcomes. Therefore, the remainder of my conversation will explore the other
two methods of outdoor program delivery, which I will argue have greater connectivity to
schools and their curriculum.
Curricula-based outdoor programming is a much rarer form of outdoor education
being used in the public school. Here, the actual school board or Department of
Education of an area has developed outcome-based curriculum specifically focused on
outdoor education. As such, the use of outdoor education does not become a
supplementary form of course enrichment that must be supported with other outcome-
base curricula. For example, a class hiking expedition would no longer be designed to
meet the curriculum needs of say a science class, but now be used to meet the outcomes
established for an ‘outdoor education course’. Obviously the first requirement of such a
delivery system is that the governing institution has already placed a value on outdoor
education and thus established specific outcomes to be met. This may be done as a part or
unit of a larger curriculum guide, say a physical education course, or be a dedicated
163
stand-alone curriculum document entirely focused on outdoor education. The strength to
such an approach would be in terms of outcome specific objectives established prior to
the course activity. For example, a teacher may weigh the value of a hiking expedition
using a ropes course over that of a kayaking program depending on how it meets the
outcomes of the course or unit. Although far from a common approach, such curricula-
based outdoor programming has been developed in some school boards, and the extent
and implementation of this will be discussed in detail in Chapter Five of this thesis.
The final method of delivery, integrated outdoor programming, shares some
similarities with supplemental outdoor programming in terms of developing activities to
enhance existing curricula of other school subjects and courses. However, the
fundamental difference is seen in the scope, duration, and connectivity of the outdoor
education experiences. Here, outdoor education is used methodologically as a thematic
teaching approach over the entire duration of a course in order to strengthen student
retention of the taught outcomes through an experiential means. Larger programs can
develop a cohort system, where one group of students shares a number of classes that all
use outdoor education as a thematic teaching base. For example, within a high school
semester a group of students may all take the same section of courses in say English,
science, art, geography, physical education, history, or almost any other course offered,
and all are taught with a thematic emphasis on outdoor education. This can also be done
with a single teacher or a team of two teaching multiple courses to the same cohort of
students, and the actual sequence of individual course outcomes may blur and blend
together in the thematic approach. Here, the activities utilizing outdoor education must be
more carefully designed to meet the curricular outcomes of the subjects simply because
164
of the larger exposure time involved. Teachers might be able to afford to lose one day on
a supplementary outdoor program that does not truly meet their outcomes, but if the
activity represents a significant part of a course’s timetable then the teacher must ensure
good overlap with the curricular outcomes. Even more, by attempting to use outdoor
education as a thematic teaching tool, the teachers involved must develop an expertise in
making linkages between outdoor education activities and specific course outcomes.
Obviously such an approach represents a significant commitment by the teacher and
students to be willing to immerse their studies so deeply in an outdoor education setting,
as well as making the multitude of logistics even that more challenging.
That being said, there are indeed a handful of such programs in existence, and this
method of outdoor program delivery is the focus of my research presented in Chapter
Seven of this thesis. For now, a deeper examination of curricula-based outdoor
programming will be discussed so as to allow for a better comparison and dialogue to be
generated in Chapter Six, focusing on integrated outdoor programming, as a means of
identifying key differences between the two systems. By recognizing and distinguishing
how outdoor education has been incorporated into public schools, I will argue that this
provides a greater understanding of potential learning binds that have formed in practice
which have hindered this process from becoming more widespread and accepted by
society.
165
Chapter 5 – Curricula-Based Programming: Outdoor Education as Curriculum
5.1 Outdoor Education Curricula for Schools
The difficultly in understanding how new subject content, like outdoor education,
may play out in a public school is that it typically becomes dependant on existing subject
areas. For example, the current value of outdoor education in Canadian schools is often
linked to such ‘established’ areas of education like the sciences (environmental issues),
history (cultural understanding of place), or English (thematic journal writing and
expression). Here, outdoor education becomes a means, or theme, for teaching existing
school-based course outcomes (as will be discussed in great detail in the next chapter).
However, as much as the approach allows outdoor education a linkage with
schools, it does not place value on it as an identifiable subject.
There is codifiable knowledge about teaching in at least three areas: teaching practices, content, and classroom enactment. The assumption inherent in this organizational framework is that these three factors are shaped and constrained by the dictates of the traditional subject disciplines. Unfortunately, experiential education – call it method, call it philosophy – is almost never elevated to the status of a statutory subject, like mathematics, or reading. (Raffan, 1995: 117)
Therefore, in order to fully understand the possible synergy that can develop between
public schools and outdoor education it would be of value to find a system that has raised
outdoor education to the status of ‘subject’. Although little discussion of this has occurred
in North American schools (and the corresponding literature and research), it has
however become an established practice in some Australian and New Zealand school
systems (detailed in this chapter), and also some initiatives in Scotland (for example, see
OLSAG, 2010).
166
5.2 Australian and New Zealand Initiatives
In New Zealand and the Australian states of Victoria and South Australia, outdoor
education has been developed into curriculum-based subject matter for secondary
schools. A brief outline of each of the three initiatives will be outlined here in order to set
a context for this discussion of curricula-based outdoor programming. This is not to say
that all outdoor education in these areas consist of actual curriculum initiatives, and it
must be recognized that other outdoor education programs are run in Australia and New
Zealand that will not be presented in this discussion.
We have two quite distinct outdoor education systems in play in this state [of Victoria]: the extra-curricular ‘camps’ programs that are often run for large groups of students such as entire year levels; and the semester or year length elective subjects including OES [Outdoor and Environmental Studies], offered as one of a range of academic courses to middle and senior students. Both are called outdoor education, but they have very different learning objectives and pedagogical strategies. (Bucknell & Mannion, 2006: 39)
Here, they distinguish a difference between extra-curricular ‘camps’ programs, which I
have referred to in this thesis as supplementary outdoor programming (and perhaps even
the forth category of leisure pursuits), to that of curricula-based outdoor programming as
they define as distinct elective subjects.
In the state of Victoria, the school district established the Victorian Certificate of
Education (VCE) in Outdoor Education in 1991. With its full introduction in 1992, the
state of Victoria had over 5500 senior school students enrolled in this elective
course/program. By the late 90’s approximately one third of Victoria’s 468 secondary
schools were offering the VCE in Outdoor Education to their grade eleven and twelve
students, while still maintaining a number of curriculum initiatives in this field for grades
between seven and ten (Lugg, 1999: 27). The importance of the VCE was the shift in
167
understanding of how outdoor education served the needs of students. “The socially
critical study of human-nature relationships in VCE Outdoor Education is the key
difference between this view of outdoor education and other conceptions” (Lugg, 1999:
28). Here the school curriculum moved away from the idea of outdoor education as
personal growth to the primary emphasis being on group and environmental interactions.
(It is important to note, as discussed later on, that even though there was a curriculum
shift away from personal development that this concept is still entrenched in much of the
teacher’s dialogue on the subject.) Although prior to this, outdoor education had still been
a curriculum component, having been established as an outcome in 1989, the creation of
the VCE has been seen as a pivotal point in outdoor education in the schools.
In Victoria, Outdoor Education has been a curriculum component in its own right since the publication of The Personal Development framework in 1989. The subsequent introduction of the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) Outdoor Education in 1992 has been a significant influence on the development of Outdoor Education thinking and practice in Victorian schools. (Lugg & Martin, 2001: 42)
Since this time, other initiatives were undertaken and the VCE Environmental
Studies was developed. This course never gained the momentum that the VCE Outdoor
Education did, and so in 2001 a new course was developed called the VCE Outdoor and
Environmental Studies, which attempted to blend the practice of outdoor education with
the content of environmental education. Preliminary studies indicated that this course
became more attractive for student enrollment (Lugg & Martin, 2001). From this survey
research, the authors determined the scope of activity and outcome focus that was being
utilized in outdoor education.
Results indicate that group cooperation, improved self esteem and increased responsibility were considered the most important outcomes of Outdoor Education. Fitness, survival skills and recreation/leisure skills
168
were considered the least important. Interestingly environmental appreciation and knowledge were considered quite important while understanding of human-nature relationships was considered less important… Environmental action rated poorly in comparison to other environmental outcomes. Leadership was generally considered more important by principals than by Outdoor Education teachers. (Lugg & Martin, 2001: 44)
Here we can start to see how educators blurred the lines between personal development
and group interaction by considering them jointly in outcome requirements. This may
possibly be only a semantic difference and the reason why some authors claim that the
VCE Outdoor Education shifted from one to the other, yet both personal development
and group interaction still remains persuasive in the dialogue. “These findings essentially
paint Outdoor Education as personal development education, a finding consistent with the
inclusion of Outdoor Education in the Personal Development framework, or the Health
and Physical Education key learning area” (Lugg & Martin, 2001: 44).
A survey of South Australian secondary schools found a similar framework for
outdoor education in this state as was present in Victoria (Polly & Pickett, 2003). There
were some subtle differences in practice and approach, particularly found in dealing with
a more rural rather than urban population, but for the most part it was consistent with
other findings.
The responses indicate that coordinators rated most highly those outcomes related to personal development, interpersonal skill development, and personal relations. They rated least the outcomes of environmental action, fitness and academic improvement. (Polley & Pickett, 2003)
However, this survey was one of the few that did not involve a study of the state of
Victoria. Even though it represents a wider range of outdoor education in curriculum
expanding outside this one state, its later development in South Australia and the more
informal use of outdoor education in the rest of Australia indicates that outdoor education
169
as curriculum is still a generally localized occurrence. However, their findings allowed
for some correlation of outcome objectives and indicated that similar to its origins in
physical education, outdoor education was still grounded in personal development and
group interactions with a progression into environmental science and related issues.
A similar pattern of curriculum development had evolved concurrently in New
Zealand. Prior to the 1940’s, their ‘outdoor education’ was mostly recreational in public
schools. Later on a greater educational focus was taken, and by the 1970’s it became
more directed to the “skills and values that are associated with employability” (Zink &
Boyes, 2006). In 1999 outdoor education became one of seven key learning areas of the
Health and Physical Education (H&PE) curriculum. “Outdoor learning is included in the
Science, Social Studies, Environmental Education and Technology curriculum statements
but it has an explicit place as a key learning area in the H&PE curriculum” (Zink &
Boyes, 2006: 11). The general curriculum outcomes established there can be summarized
as follows:
To achieve the outdoor education aims of the H&PE curriculum students require a range of structured, sequenced, and developmentally appropriate learning opportunities in outdoor education. These include: 1) adventure activities and outdoor pursuits that focus on physical skill development, fun, and enjoyment, 2) adventure activities and outdoor pursuits that focus on the development of personal and interpersonal skills, 3) learning about the traditions, values, and heritages of their own and other cultural groups, including those of the tangata whenua [Maori meaning ‘people of the land’], 4) opportunities to learn about the environmental impact of outdoor recreation activities and to plan strategies to evaluate and manage personal and group safety, challenge, and risk, and 5) finding out how to access outdoor recreation opportunities within the community. (Zink & Boyes, 2006: 12)
Although similarities exist between the New Zealand and Victoria models, it is
interesting to note a minor distinction: Victoria schools went so far as to establish outdoor
170
education as a stand-alone course for senior grades, while New Zealand kept outdoor
education under the directives of a physical education curriculum initiative. As such, to
no surprise, the Australian system developed a quicker and more in-depth focus on
environmental issues than the New Zealand counterpart, as it provided more exposure
time for students to outdoor education and thus an increased likelihood of curriculum
expanding into environmental education. But exactly how these school systems evolved
their outdoor education curriculum is important to discuss.
171
5.3 Outdoor Education as Curriculum
Similar to other country’s public school systems, in Australia “many writers have
criticized the narrowness of education based on mechanistic thinking” (Cooper, 1996:
12). As such, outdoor education initially gained momentum in their school system as a
curriculum focus on personal development. Like the broader field of outdoor education in
its various states of play, there is an underlying emphasis here for the role of the
individual within the group, and it was considered that such an approach had benefit in
the school system. “It is clear from working with young people in the outdoors, in
informal situations, that some fundamental needs are not being met by education in
schools. There appears to be a need for community” (Cooper, 1996: 11). This need for
community, combined with the concept of environmental awareness became the founding
points for its curriculum development in Australia. From this, their education system
established the role that outdoor education was going to play for students:
Outdoor education focuses on personal development through the interaction with others and responsible use of the natural environment. It involves the acquisition of knowledge, values and skills that enhance safe access, understanding and aesthetic appreciation of the outdoors, often through adventure activities. (Lugg, 1999: 28 – quoting The Personal Development Framework P-10 [Victoria’s public school curriculum guide], 1989: 131)
The inclusion of outdoor education in their course offerings was seen as a way to address
the perceived weaknesses of a school system relying on ‘mechanistic thinking’ (a concept
very similar to points addressed by other authors already presented in this thesis, such as
Schön’s technical rationality).
Good education is holistic, it is concerned with mind, body and spirit, motivation and enthusiasm are essential ingredients of effective learning. … Young people who underachieve in the classroom may suddenly come
172
alive and show a range of skills that have remained hidden in formal teaching. (Cooper, 1996: 11)
Thus, early on, one of the principle aims for the curriculum of outdoor education
for schools was this concept of personal development. Here the medium of the outdoors
would be used to provide transformative experiences to students. “The methods of
development training is compatible with educating future citizens. … There is little doubt
that this learning cycle helps participants to clarify values and make changes in their
behaviour” (Cooper, 1996: 13). However, this associated value of outdoor education in
schooling practice needed to be substantiated. For this, Neill & Richards (1998) used a
meta-analysis of survey and outcome data to support the claim that outdoor education
‘works’ in the Australian school system.
These results are a positive endorsement of outdoor education as a legitimate and effective educational training method… A particularly impressive strength would seem to be that outdoor education programs can trigger in participants an ongoing cycle of personal growth. (Neill & Richards, 1998: 7)
From this study, the authors concluded that one of the most common claims that outdoor
education programs make a valuable contribution to a person’s sense of worth for him or
herself could be seen to be present. “This evidence suggests that participants experience
additional growth on returning to their home environments” (Neill & Richards, 1998: 4).
What was even more interesting to note is that they addressed the issue of transference;
how the personal development skills learned in an outdoor environment are conducive to
everyday life. Here they even suggested that outdoor education was seen to have an even
greater lasting effect than other methods developed in the school system.
With most forms of intervention and training there is a steady loss of benefits once the program finished. This makes the long-term outdoor education results particularly impressive. (Neill & Richards, 1998: 4)
173
From this starting point, outdoor education curriculum as a means of personal
development, the Australian and New Zealand schools established outdoor education as a
viable and legitimate curricular topic to be offered to students. What is now important to
discuss is how such a subject as outdoor education in schools has potentially transformed
in concept since its inception.
5.3.1 Shifts in Outdoor Education Curriculum
The scope of outdoor education for Australia and New Zealand curriculum has
undergone a pendulum effect between two key aspects: that of generalized personal
development and that of more established curricular topics, like environmental sciences.
Initially, outdoor education was seen as a form of personal development, or having a
focus on individual skills. “The location of outdoor education primarily in the H&PE
[Health and Physical Education] has ramifications relating to the perception and practice
of outdoor education in Victorian schools” (Lugg, 1999: 30). However, a shift in
curricular focus was observed to occur.
During the last decade outdoor education curriculum in Victoria has moved considerably from the emphasis on individual development to one which focuses on developing an understanding of the ecological concept of interconnectedness and the social and cultural influences on human-nature relationships. (Lugg, 1999: 27)
Thus, it could be argued that outdoor education underwent changes that prompted for
more ‘specific outcomes’ than what are normally associated with personal development,
which in curriculum documents tends to be an overarching outcome itself not specific to
any one discipline or subject. What is interesting to note is that Lugg in a later study
commented on how those in the profession viewed such a transition.
174
The majority of teachers and principals see the educational value of Outdoor Education as primarily related to personal development objectives with environmental objectives of secondary importance. (Lugg & Martin, 2001: 47)
Here we start to see an interplay emerge between curriculum development and teacher
practice, and that sometimes there is a discrepancy between the two. “Some teachers in
the current project admitted that their outdoor education ‘agenda’ was based in their
personal passions and did not necessarily reflect the stated aims of the program they
worked in” (Gunn, 2006: 32). Therefore, even though curriculum documentation on
outdoor education has shifted from personal development to environmental objectives, it
is not clear to what degree of an actual transition may have occurred in terms of teacher
practice. However, at the very least it could be concluded that their outdoor education
programs have shifted to more greatly include environmental objectives. This growth in
curricular frameworks was noted by others;
Further support for this [that outdoor education is more than physical education] is the assertion by over 60% of responding teachers that outdoor education is linked to other curriculum and learning areas. Over 30% of schools linked the outdoor education program to the Society and Environment learning area and 30% linked the curriculum to the Science learning area. Other learning areas mentioned included English, the Arts, Tourism, Maths, Technology, and Language Other Than English. (Polley & Pickett, 2003)
In addition, even though many teachers recognized what they considered
‘personal development’ outcomes for their courses, there was a significant shift in how
they perceived the value of performance-based skills as thought of in terms of physical
education.
Most participants made reference to environmental knowledge or appreciation as well as personal development as being desired outcomes of outdoor education. … In both the journals and interviews, very few
175
teachers commented on activity skill development as being a primary outcome for outdoor education. (Gunn, 2006: 31)
More so, outdoor education transitioned to what may be considered more reflective
learning. It developed into a better model of experiential education than simply being a
skill-based model which is more representative of outdoor leisure pursuits. “I am suitably
impressed by recent efforts to develop the ‘Australian’ model of OE that incorporates
elements of critical thinking with a deeper understanding of ‘place’ and one’s connection
to a particular environment while engaged in challenging experiences” (Priest, 2000: 65).
This conflict between its origins as physical education and its role with more
encompassing environmental and group considerations caused a shift not only in
curricular outcomes but also in entire course structuring. In the state of Victoria, the VCE
Outdoor Education was combined with the VCE Environmental Studies, and the resulting
curriculum established in 2001 was called Outdoor and Environmental Studies. However,
there was more behind this than simple semantic name changing, and it represented the
blending of various like-minded outcomes. “The merging of Environmental Studies with
Outdoor Education was intended to give an academic orientation to complement the
perceived skills basis of the Outdoor Education study design” (Gough, 2007: 20).
However, outdoor education still maintained its identity and simply used concepts in
environmental issues to enhance its outcome base.
The discourses of the Environmental Science document have been regulated so that there is a greater likelihood that the subject will be acceptable to scientists and science teachers whereas the study design for Outdoor and Environmental Studies has been allowed to be more holistic in its approach, while aiming to be acceptable to outdoor educators. (Gough, 2007: 20)
176
Thus, even in curricular objectives a distinction was made as to the role of outdoor
education as it shifted to a more ‘academic’ orientation while still attempting to maintain
its identity as a distinct course. “Outdoor education distinguishes itself by its separation
from schools and its experiential orientation, yet environmental studies are generally
school and text based” (Gough, 2007: 23)
However, the origins of outdoor education in the physical education documents
and its shift to environmental sciences, while attempting to hold on to its identity as an
experiential-based learning model, created a multitude of understandings of what the
‘subject’ represented. Thus, “Along with the numerous definitions of outdoor education
come equally numerous goals for outdoor education programs and subjects” (Bucknell &
Mannion, 2006: 40). From this, an emphasis has developed to try to understand the
context of outdoor education in schools.
The diversity and complexity of that history is reflected in the lack of semantic agreement around outdoor education in New Zealand. One of the challenges has been to move away from a narrow, activities based focus to finding terminology that encompasses education that occurs outdoors. (Zink & Boyes, 2006: 12)
It was also noticed that general trends in outdoor education throughout the New Zealand
school system showed that teachers perceived it more as curriculum enrichment in later
grades, whereas they still viewed it as activity-based in younger grades (Zink & Boyes,
2006: 15). This curricular shift between grade levels is similar to that which occurred for
the senior outdoor education courses in Australia, and may represent a comparable
transition in thinking.
177
5.3.2 An Outdoor Education Body of Knowledge
Along these lines of determining the terminology used to understand the subject
of outdoor education, it has been suggested that “what’s lacking is a coherent outdoor
education body of knowledge” (Bucknell & Mannion, 2006: 39). To frame the concept of
outdoor education, these authors took the view of its practice in schools as curricular-
based subject matter. By doing so, it can be suggested that they made the clearest
distinction between outdoor education as curriculum versus more of a generalized and
encompassing personal development program.
Because of our focus on developing a body of knowledge for outdoor education as a curriculum subject we deliberately avoid framing any definition from the perspective of personal development and growth in participants. Such a focus may be appropriate for extra-curricular outdoor education programs, but we believe it is not suitable for an outdoor education subject embedded within a curriculum as an equal with other, more traditional subjects. (Bucknell & Mannion, 2006: 39)
Here their emphasis was in developing an understanding of the content of outdoor
education and what one would expect students to learn from such a subject. From this
perspective they proposed four parts that should comprise an outdoor education
curriculum: 1) knowledge construction, 2) outdoor environments, 3) living and traveling
in outdoor environments, and 4) ecological sustainability (Bucknell & Mannion, 2006:
41).
Each of these areas of content was further broken down to define how the outdoor
education curricula may be structured:
(1) Knowledge construction consists of a) recognizing and valuing different ways of
knowing, for example, scientific, spiritual, religious, cultural, artistic and indigenous, and
b) making and examining arguments.
178
(2) Outdoor environments consists of a) understanding natural environments and built
environments, b) understanding differences between environments, from the perspective
of human relationships with those environments, c) understanding differences in human
relationships with environments over time, and d) understanding basic ecological
concepts.
(3) Living and traveling in outdoor environments consists of a) developing basic skills in
outdoor environments, and b) understanding risk in outdoor relationships.
(4) Ecological sustainability consists of a) developing and understanding connection with
place, b) understanding environmental and other worldviews, c) knowledge of
environmental ethics, d) knowledge of minimal impact practices, e) understanding
sustainability, and f) participating in environmental action.
By outlining such a content-based curriculum for outdoor education, the authors
were not suggesting a change in approach to outdoor education, and maintained that the
emphasis on experiential education and the ‘hands-on’ activities would still be critical
components.
In establishing a body of knowledge that focuses on environmental understandings and relationships we are not advocating that adventure activities be removed from outdoor education programs. These are often the things that make it attractive for us to go into the outdoors in the first place – especially for many teenagers – and removing adventurous activities may well reduce the interest in many students for examining and developing an understanding of environmental issues associated with the outdoors. (Bucknell & Mannion, 2006: 43)
As the complexity of the subject of outdoor education grows in Australia and
New Zealand, and as the curriculum shifts to include more and various aspects to its
content knowledge, a fundamental need for teacher training and certification has started
to take form. It has been recognized that “as is the case in both Victoria and South
179
Australia, outdoor education is predominantly taught by enthusiastic teachers many of
whom appear to have developed their outdoor skills separate to their teacher training”,
and while this trend was being observed, Christchurch Polytechnic in New Zealand had a
dedicated outdoor education degree program graduate its first cohort in 2005 (Zink &
Boyes, 2006: 19). However, the challenge of teacher training for a shifting curriculum
does not represent the only barrier for the Australia and New Zealand outdoor education
programs.
180
5.4 Logistical Barriers
Being the largest of such curricula-based programming in the field of outdoor
education, a good amount of study has been possible in Australia and New Zealand that
examines the practical and logistical barriers associated with running such dynamic and
nontraditional programs. As mentioned previously, establishing content in outdoor
education becomes important if it is to be viewed as an academic subject. Of course, the
need for establishing content can also become a barrier.
The lack of clarity about the purpose and content of school outdoor education, even amongst outdoor educators, serves to inhibit its development both within the education system and in the industrial sector. Outdoor education will continue to remain on the ‘fringe’ as an extra-curricula offering in schools unless outdoor educators can clearly articulate its educational purposes, content and methods. (Lugg, 1999: 25)
Thus, central to the idea of offering an outdoor education curriculum is the importance of
understanding the scope of that subject, not only in terms of the institution as a whole but
also in reducing different conceptions amongst outdoor educators. Questions have risen
as to whether or not this has developed because of differences in interpretation of the
existing outdoor education curriculum or a lack thereof. “It is not clear whether the lack
of public articulation of the aims of outdoor education is due to a general lack of common
understanding among outdoor educators, or to the lack of documentation of those aims”
(Lugg, 1999: 27). It has been discussed that “there is scant specific information about
Outdoor Education programmes, teachers or implementation issues in [Victorian]
schools” (Lugg & Martin, 2001: 42), and that understanding of how outdoor education
operates as a subject body is important. Also, the difficulty in offering a program area
that also happens to operate outside the public school system is that the general public
develops many preconceived notions of what these programs would look like. In many
181
cases this creates an industry-based idea of what outdoor education should look like
rather than an academic one. Thus in order to address this fundamental barrier that may
arise, outdoor educators must unify and present a clear and distinct curriculum.
The belief in the ability of outdoor education experiences to ‘speak for themselves’ in relation to educational goals and outcomes may, in fact, be a significant contributor to the general lack of understanding of outdoor education as a component of the school curriculum. Tacit understanding may be effective amongst those who have shared the outdoor education experience, but it is unlikely to be effective in convincing policy makers of the value of outdoor education. (Lugg, 1999: 27)
Such a political view for the articulation of outdoor education curriculum is similar in
scope to the general promotion of outdoor education in schools (Miner, 1993), as
discussed in Chapter Four of this thesis.
From this position, clearly defining this curriculum becomes important when
considering how these courses have shifted from a focus on physical education and
personal development skills towards more specific course-based outcomes such as
environmental science. An importance in distinguishing the exact role of outdoor
education, as something more than just ‘simply’ physical education, is in how the
institution will assign teacher appointments to such programs.
The location of outdoor education in the H&PE Learning Area may inadvertently perpetuate the perception that outdoor education is the province of the physical education teacher. … In recent years at least, teachers with physical education qualifications but no formal outdoor education qualifications, are being employed specifically to teach outdoor education. … It also suggests that outdoor education is not understood as a distinct component of the curriculum requiring specialist knowledge and expertise. (Lugg, 1999: 30)
Because of this, it has been suggested that the exact nature of teacher preparation
becomes critical. “What is needed in Australia and New Zealand is an arrangement where
the three approaches of program accreditation, leader qualifications, and staff
182
certification can exist in harmony and with synergy” (Priest, 2000: 67). This again links
back to a fundamental aspect that in order for outdoor education to run as a consistent
program, there must be a unified understanding of the subject by those teachers in charge
of it, and at the same time ensuring they have developed the skills and content knowledge
needed to execute such a program.
If outdoor education curriculum is becoming more focused on environmental education through experiential education in natural environments, the training of the outdoor education teacher is a crucial issue. The kind of knowledge and skills required will be more specialized. … Considerable in-servicing will be necessary for teachers as the outdoor education curriculum evolves. (Lugg, 1999: 31)
This need for teachers that are specifically trained in outdoor education theory and
methods has become identifiable as a significant hurdle to implementation of these
courses. “36% of teachers thought finding appropriate staffing the main issue… Staff
expertise and qualifications is an underlying issue in identification of barriers to the
conduct of programmes” (Lugg & Martin, 2001: 46). It has been suggested that such
teacher training should be done by a variety of sources and training institutions in order
to ‘produce’ the best outdoor education teacher (Priest, 2000: 67). Possible training
logistics might include the use of sport governing bodies to develop technical and
leadership skills that often require specific certifications for insurance licensing, being
combined with interpersonal skills, such as teamwork theory, being developed by
universities or colleges. It is felt that “the key here is to make sure no one agency does all
the developing” (Priest, 2000: 67) in order to maintain a diverse and up-to-date program.
Yet in some studies, the discussion of certification versus qualification had surfaced
again:
183
In general many felt that experience was more important than qualifications but that training and education was important. Significantly, metropolitan state schools rated qualifications as more important than experience with many teachers concerned about legal liability. Many coordinators felt there was a lack of recognition by training bodies for pervious experience and that courses were too difficult to access. (Polley & Pickett, 2003)
However, the perception of these programs and the subsequent required teacher
training are not the only possibilities that could create barriers for outdoor education
programs in the Australian and New Zealand public schools, if implemented as curricula-
based outdoor programming. Studies in the state of Victoria have shown numerous
‘simple’ logistics creating potentially overwhelming barriers that, at times, have greatly
hindered these outdoor education courses.
Staffing, cost and timetable are the big three [barriers], which is no surprise. Generally teachers looking at conducting Outdoor Education programmes seemed thwarted by the need to find appropriate staff to support the practical excursions seen as essential to Outdoor Education. (Lugg & Martin, 2001: 46)
Likewise, similar to these findings, it was determined that programs in the state of South
Australia were also presented with these difficulties.
The survey results suggest that outdoor education is generally valued as a curriculum area, but schools are experiencing difficulties with the implementation of outdoor programs. The barriers experienced by SA [South Australia] secondary schools can be largely categorized as economic, staffing and logistical barriers. … Both coordinators and Principals reported largely structural rather than philosophical barriers to the implementation of outdoor education within schools. (Polley & Pickett, 2003)
In addition, it was discussed that these practical barriers and resource limitations for
implementation of outdoor education programs was compounded or intensified by the
teacher staff for these courses having school qualifications in discipline areas other then
in outdoor education, and thus not ‘experts’ in this field (Lugg & Martin, 2001: 48). In
184
New Zealand, a similar trend in barriers occurred with only a slight difference in the
emphasis on perceived difficulties.
The cost of the program was seen as the greatest barrier to teaching in the outdoors. … The crowded curriculum was seen as a greater barrier in New Zealand schools that it was in the Australian schools surveyed. … Demands on personal time, emphasis on safety and the paper work involved with organizing outdoor education programmes were seen as the next greatest barriers. (Zink & Boyes, 2006: 18)
Here a noticeable change in the discussion dealt with the notion of a crowded curriculum,
and this may be due to differences in how outdoor education has been offered: as a
distinct course in Australia and as a single unit incorporated into a physical education
course in New Zealand. Another point when dealing with the demands on personal time
was that it was suggested that heavy workloads became a choice of dedicated teachers
rather than requirements of these programs (Gunn, 2006). However, there is a potential
difficulty in distinguishing this fact if one considers that indeed a demanding workload
would naturally ‘select’ teachers who maintain such jobs that were very dedicated and
would unsurprisingly put in extra time.
In order to address these logistical barriers for outdoor education, it was proposed
by Polley & Pickett (2003) that six key support measures are needed to be in place, as
was determined by research conducted with coordinators of these outdoor education
courses in South Australia. These measures, rated in order of importance, are: 1) an
established budget for outdoor education, 2) set teaching relief time, 3) supplemental
resources to teach the subject, 4) general support required from administration and other
staff, 5) continual in-service training, and 6) availability of post graduate university
courses.
185
In addition to these more pressing barriers discussed, there were numerous other
factors that concerned teachers as potential barriers that would play into the exact role of
outdoor education in schools (Polley & Pickett, 2003). These included: 1) the aging
population of teachers reducing the tendency to take students on outdoor experiences, 2)
the failure of certification and training bodies to acknowledge teaching experiences, 3)
getting funding support becomes a constant struggle, 4) the time spent away from
families, 5) the lack of recognition of the value of outdoor education in schools and
society, 6) difficulties in obtaining staff with appropriate qualifications and experience, 7)
the instability of the workforce within the Education Department causing the demise of
many good programs, 8) dissatisfaction with the Education Department at placing
inappropriate staff to these positions, and 9) frustration with activity specific training
bodies requiring difficult to obtain qualifications for simple outdoor education activities.
However, an even greater barrier was considered for these programs:
The very attributes that make outdoor educators effective, for example independence, strong commitment and lifestyle investment, are the ones that most threaten their longevity in this field. (Gunn, 2006: 29)
Thus, in a way, we come full circle. Certainly logistical issues are, and will always be,
pressing and needing to be dealt with in effective curricula-based outdoor programming if
we wish to utilize these courses in schools. Yet, does the very nature of experiential and
outdoor education, and the methods of delivery used, present greater barriers to
implementation? In order to deal with such a question, this argument brings us to the
discussion of outdoor education utilized as pedagogy versus its development as
curriculum.
186
5.5 Subject or Method?
What is very interesting to note in the literature of Australian and New Zealand
public school outdoor education programs is that although they have been established as
curriculum-specific outcomes and courses there is still some confusion as to their nature
as curriculum or pedagogy. For example, research has noted how teachers respond to
such an issue:
The statement that respondents most consistently agreed strongly with is that ‘outdoor education can enrich all curriculum areas’. As a corollary to this, respondents agreed least strongly with the statements that ‘outdoor education is based substantially in the H&PE curriculum’ and that ‘outdoor education is mainly focused on outdoor pursuits’. Yet at the same time respondents were less inclined to agree with the statement that outdoor education is best thought of as a teaching methodology. More detailed investigation of teachers’ beliefs and values is needed to try and tease apart this apparent contradiction. (Zink & Boyes, 2006: 18)
Here we see a potential confusion develop, maybe even one being a result of outdoor
education teachers wanting ‘the best of both worlds’. It could be suggested that these
teachers have developed an espoused theory that places the value of outdoor education in
many subject areas and thus has great importance in public schools, but at the same time
they wish to view outdoor education as being strongly content driven, perhaps as a way to
strengthen the notion of a needed specialization in their field of study as a way to elevate
it to the status of profession. Yet when one considers how educators mostly see the value
of such programs presented here there becomes a difficulty for establishing them as a
stand-alone subject.
The learning outcomes that were considered most important [to teachers] were largely concerned with personal and social development. These included group co-operation, improved self esteem, consideration of others, safety knowledge, increased self-responsibility and social and communication skills. (Zink & Boyes, 2006: 16)
187
Where this becomes important is in dealing with how outdoor education will
establish itself and its role in the school system. “If the school community does not see
Outdoor Education as having distinctive content it may be more difficult to justify as an
essential component of what is often perceived as a ‘crowded’ curriculum” (Lugg &
Martin, 2001: 44). Thus, in order to ‘defend’ a needed role of outdoor education in
schools, educators must develop an outcome-specific curriculum that reinforces its
educational value for schools. But the discernment of outdoor education as method or as
content still surfaces in individual’s theories-in-use for this issue. “The weak support for
the role of outdoor education in developing academic outcomes likely reflects a general
perception that this subject is a practical one” (Polley & Pickett, 2003). Because of this
general perception in education that anything of ‘value’ must have specific outcomes
rather than being an effective established methodology, the importance in creating
curricula-based outdoor programs for schools becomes a matter of subject survival.
Lugg and Martin (2001) conclude that outdoor education may be harder to justify in schools if it is predominantly about personal development outcomes, as there are other subjects that can make legitimate claims for similar outcomes. They suggest the problem lies in outdoor education’s emphasis on process rather than having a distinctive content. (Gunn, 2006: 33)
Thus, one aspect of curricula-based outdoor programming can now be suggested
to be true: it allows for a stronger integration of the subject of outdoor education into
public schools, even if it does not fully address the exact nature of these programs for that
school system. Here we can understand this in political terms: curricula-specific
programs in outdoor education start to speak the dominate ‘language’ of the larger
institution, and thus the governing body, who usually has less of an appreciation and
understanding for the theory and practice of outdoor education, can now understand
188
possible linkages for their schools. But even as Australian and New Zealand schools have
established curriculum in outdoor education, and certainly strengthened the notion of this
area as being a viable subject worthy of study, it has not made significant headway in
clarifying outdoor education as curriculum. “For the current research participants, it is not
the content necessarily that makes outdoor education distinctive but the context” (Gunn,
2006: 33). Such an ambiguity may have possibly developed, again, out of political
necessity. It may actually be a case that many outdoor educators ‘feel’, or have a tacit
theory-in-use that the value of outdoor education lies within it as context, but that in order
to justify their practice in the public school system they may be politically motivated to
develop an espoused theory stating its value as content.
Again, however, the language of the outdoor educator and researcher assists in
creating this learning bind where the distinction of outdoor education as method or
content still becomes difficult to ascertain.
We divide the goals of outdoor education as falling broadly into two categories: those aimed at improving social and individual skills such as leadership, self-confidence, team work and cooperation, motivation and so on; and those aimed at developing environmental understandings and awareness. (Bucknell & Mannion, 2006: 40)
The difficulty with these two broad categories is that they have the potential to speak to
different elements of schooling. In terms of individual skills, such as leadership, self-
confidence, etc, these can often be viewed as ‘global’ outcomes. As such, global
outcomes become embedded in specific outcomes and demonstrate the ability for them to
be addressed across a wide range of curricular topics. Thus, they essentially become a
methodology; an approach to teaching specific outcomes in a manner that addresses the
embedded or global outcome. This is in stark contrast to such aims as environmental
189
understanding and awareness, which would require specific teaching outcomes. Here, the
subject content would be directly guided by what exact content knowledge is to be taught
to students, such as for example the roles of global warming on a marshlands ecosystem.
This distinction between embedded versus specific outcomes can also be linked to the
larger debate of outdoor education as method or content. Furthermore, it demonstrates
how curriculum language may hinder any immediate clarification.
This debate in the role of outdoor education in schools is not helped when one
considers the typical origin of much of the outdoor education practices beginning within
the commercial outdoor industry. Here, outdoor education companies must rely more on
their trade as providing a content or specific skill base than what may be needed in the
school system.
There is an obvious dissonance here with the previously mentioned call for a distinctive content that suggests a disassociation between the school and tertiary sectors of the outdoor education field. This distance needs to be addressed if each is to profit from the other’s expertise. (Gunn, 2006: 33)
As such, influence from the industry sector of outdoor education may naturally create a
shifting weight to establishing outdoor education in schools as curriculum rather than
pedagogy. What is also interesting to note is that such a view may be slightly, or perhaps
significantly, in conflict with the practices of many outdoor educator teachers. Such a
distinction may result in a continuing rift between school and industry that does not allow
either to grow from such a potential interaction (since schools could benefit from the
expertise of the industry, while the industry could benefit from the validation of their
field as having educational merits in the more public realm).
190
However it may be viewed, it must be acknowledged that the Australian and New
Zealand system of curricula-based outdoor programs are still the best case-studies
available to consider the role outdoor education has as curriculum in the public school
system. We have discussed how educators in these areas have developed such a program
of study, and how they have come to understand both the importance and limitations of
such a content-based course within schools. As such, though the idea of curricula-based
outdoor programming for schools may be significantly more limited in practice than
supplementary outdoor programming, the discussion of these examples provides a solid
base for establishing its viability in schools.
From here it will now be of significant value to explore the idea of integrated
outdoor programming and to compare and contrast this practice with that of curricula-
based outdoor programming. From this I will play out an argument that addresses the
need of outdoor education in schools as being one that is predominately based on either a
pedagogical method or one sounded in curriculum outcomes.
191
Chapter 6 – Integrated Programming: Outdoor Education as Pedagogy
6.1 Integrated Curriculum
While curricula-based outdoor programming requires its foundation to originate
in a Department of Education or school board that provides ‘official’ course guides for its
existence, the other two forms of outdoor programming, supplemental and integrated, do
not. Though supplemental outdoor programming requires much less preparation and
commitment than integrated programs, by being considered a ‘one-off’ approach or
activity to support a particular school topic, it can also be considered equally less
dependant on that curriculum. Many supplemental outdoor programs are run in schools
that may only loosely connect to the school’s curricular subjects. By having such
variation, the existence of supplemental outdoor programming has an equal chance at
hindering the progression of outdoor education in schools as it does to benefit it.
However, as will be discussed in this chapter, integrated outdoor programming relies
much more heavily on developing a strong interconnection with existing school
curriculum, and thus has a greater potential for enhancement. Another aspect that will be
discussed is that the influence and enrichment that integrated outdoor programming has
for school curriculum is paradoxically based on its difficulty for implementation; since
these programs are challenging to start, the teachers who are typically involved tend to be
very gifted in their profession and, by their very nature, this reduces the chances for
weaker programs that could potentially devalue the role of outdoor education in schools.
But this difficulty in implementation means that integrated outdoor programming exists
192
as a much rarer form of school-based outdoor education than it does as supplemental
programming.
While school-based environmental education practices across Canada are diverse, it is still unusual to find environmental education infused into all secondary school subjects or integrated so that the curriculum is organized not around subjects but interconnected issues and themes. (Russell & Burton, 2000: 287)
Although Ontario recently created initiatives to implement many programs for
interdisciplinary studies (Barrett, 2002), our main conversation will focus on integrated
outdoor programs generated by practicing teachers as ‘grass-root’ initiatives. The rational
for this is two-fold: first, the creation of a system of interdisciplinary studies programs
focus on many other areas besides outdoor education (such as industry preparation, health
professions, and business programming, to name a few) and as such may lose many key
and critical elements of outdoor and experiential education by developing a more global
program system; and second, by creating such programs at the Department of Education
level there becomes the possibility of blurring the lines between curriculum and
pedagogy because of how easily they are able to transform curriculum documents at the
departmental level in order to align with new programs. For example, if an integrated
program does not align well for the inclusion of existing curriculum, at the Department of
Education level it is possible to create new curricula to meet the goals of the new
integrated program. Therefore, in such a case the ability to distinguish between curricula-
based and integrated programming is diminished.
In addition, it must be recognized that integrated outdoor programming (as well as
other themed programs) is not exclusive to Canada, but has been developed in other
countries as well (Drake, 2002). In particular, simply because of the sheer size difference,
193
programs (and research) in the United States that have integrated outdoor education as
their core far outweigh initiatives in Canada.
While there has been some research conducted on the Canadian programs, to date there has been nothing to rival Lieberman and Hoody’s 1998 US study of 40 schools which had adopted what they called the EIC model – the Environment as an Integrating Context for learning. (Comishin, et al, 2004: 48)
This one study alone culminated data from enough schools to represent an equivalence in
number to roughly all integrated outdoor programs present in Canada (COEO, 2003).
However, the focus on Canadian integrated programs in this thesis is for three reasons:
first, it provides more preliminary research through Canadian educational systems which
can be noted as being lacking in the journals; secondly, it aims to provide a base that may
potentially expose differences in practice and pedagogy between Canadian- and US-
based programs that would allow a starting point for future research; and finally as a
Canadian dissertation, this work is more interested in the Canadian contributions to this
discussion in terms of how they relate to our existing public school system. However, at
this point it will be assumed that such differences in program approach would most likely
be slight, and that both countries, and others, utilize the same general system of
implementing integrated outdoor programs, as will now be discussed.
6.1.1 Thematic Approach to Teaching
The most fundamental element of integrated outdoor programming is that it
incorporates the theme of outdoor education as a teaching methodology to span across
existing school curriculum subjects. Here in Canada, outdoor education as process
194
becomes more important than as content, since the content nature is already outlined in
the subject material that outdoor education endeavors to integrate together.
Integrated Curriculum applied to the outdoors is a blending of skills and knowledge from a number of traditional subjects to be presented through a holistic teaching approach in the outdoor classroom whereby the students gain credit for the integrated subjects. Integrated curriculum is a curriculum where the students cannot discern between subject material because the lessons of each subject are intermeshed, as in life. (Comishin & Potter, 2000: 26)
Again, it must be noted that differentiating between the notions of outdoor education as
curriculum versus pedagogy is not common, and thus some researchers, as above, speak
of integrated programming as ‘curriculum’ even though they then immediately discuss it
in terms of a holistic teaching approach.
The key feature of integrated outdoor programming is that by using a themed
approach to learning, although specific subject curricular outcomes are present, they are
no longer organized sequentially or specifically separated into ‘subjects’. For example, in
an integrated outdoor program a teacher may have students undertake a winter ‘skills’
camping expedition. Although students would gain non-school oriented content (the
‘hard-skills’ or technical skills of cold weather camping), activities would be geared to
cover other school subjects within the curriculum; for example, journal writing for
English class, analysis of a dormant winter ecosystem for a biology class, or perhaps a
comparison of contemporary and historical technologies used for wilderness survival for
a history class. Each of these outcomes would no longer be isolated in separate activities,
and it would become difficult for students to actually distinguish which course is being
taught at any given time. Again, the difference in this approach as compared to
supplemental outdoor programming is that this would not be a ‘one-off’ activity:
195
planning how this activity becomes the primary source of learning for a subject outcome
is different than teaching it in a regular classroom and then using an outdoor theme to
reinforce the concept. Here, the outdoor classroom is the only avenue for the concept to
be handled and thus a much greater focus on integration with existing curriculum
becomes critical.
6.1.2 Structuring of Integrated Programs
Although there are relatively few integrated outdoor programs in Canada (COEO,
2003), or elsewhere in the world, the exact nature and design for integration and
implementation can be quite varied. However, they all share a fundamental structure that
defines them as ‘integrated’:
In these programs, students spend the full day with one group of peers and one or two teachers, as in elementary school, for a semester. An integrated approach involves grouping four or five subjects together to make a "package" (for example, from physical education, leadership, environmental science, geography, English, or co-operative education). Courses to be offered are selected by individual teachers based on their own areas of expertise. (Russell & Burton, 2000: 288)
Students, who often undergo a selection process due to the popularity of the programs,
would enroll for such integrated outdoor programs the previous school year. Then every
student is essentially scheduled into a cohort structure, where each has an identical
timetable of courses for the semester that they are participating in the program. The
courses are selected by the teacher and typically represent courses in which they have
experience and knowledge, and also ones that are best met around which to design the
course. These can typically include the ‘standard’ courses such as English, biology, and
physical education, but may also involve co-op (work placement) credits and/or
196
specialized locally developed courses. There are even cases where the co-op credit is
designed to give students a leadership role by providing high school student led
supplementary outdoor programming courses for elementary school students, and thus
further increasing outdoor education exposure in schools (Russell & Burton, 2000; Jupp,
1995). The only course selection in the integrated program is typically that students elect
to enroll in the entire program, although some allow for a variance in one course by
having the program cover the learning outcomes for five courses while the students
officially are graded for four, hence given choice in one elective.
As with any program, the final grades are separated into the core school courses
for administrative and graduation purposes, but while in such a program students cannot
typically discern one course from the next in day-to-day activities.
Sample course outlines and culminating units representing different ways to structure interdisciplinary programs have also been developed [by Ontario for their interdisciplinary studies initiative]. Of particular interest to outdoor and environmental educators will be a model 5-credit package incorporating Interdisciplinary Studies (Grade 11, Open), Environment and Resource Management (Grade 12, University/College), Healthy Active Living Education (Grade 12 Open), English (Grade 11, University), and Field Ecology from a Local Perspective (Grade 11, University/College; a locally designed course that has already received ministry approval). (Barrett, 2002: 5) Yet, “it is one thing to put schools subjects together by administrative fiat; it is
quite another for students to integrate their learning” (Horwood, 2002a: 8). This becomes
a central issue for teachers implementing integrated outdoor programs: by providing a
thematic means for delivery and integration, teachers must do more than simply rearrange
the sequence of particular course outcomes; instead they must ensure that the thematic
delivery enhances student performance and information retention. The best example for
this is to critically examine one program that has a slightly different origin and focus:
197
This July, the first “English in the Wilderness” course ran at Outward Bound Canada (OBC). The three-week course combined the traditional OBC curriculum with ENG 3U, a grade 11 English credit. This is the first time an academic, university preparation course has been integrated with the core OBC summer program. (McIntyre, 2004: 12)
Here is an example that demonstrates integration of a public school course within an
existing outdoor education program. However, what is fundamentally different between
this and integrated outdoor programs offered by provincially-funded public schools is the
emphasis of curriculum integration designed by classroom teachers. Arguably, classroom
teachers hold a greater ‘specialization’ or experience for curriculum outcomes, as the
outdoor industry educator does for skill-based expeditions. Because of this, it became
noticeable in McIntyre’s paper that much of the ‘integration’ of the English credit did not
have sound pedagogy. Here there was a good deal of assignment work prior to the trip
expedition: reading texts, assignments, and even quizzes resembled a similar structure to
traditional classroom teaching and did not provide much added benefit for integration of
outdoor education. However, at one point they did use their own outdoor journey quite
well as an active lived metaphor for the experiences of a main character in their book of
study – a good example of integrated outdoor programming. But for the most part, OBC
used the English course rather traditionally and this brings into question that they,
outdoor educators, were not experts in curriculum design, unlike teachers, and managed
only a blanket approach to more traditional methods that happen to be in the outdoors
(not true integration). Therefore, similarly in the regular school system, teachers need to
ensure that an integrated outdoor program is more than simply a name and scheduling
framework for students; elements of outdoor and experiential education must enhance the
student’s learning environment.
198
Another significant benefit of a cohort-designed integrated program is that it
alleviates a great deal of scheduling pressure from the school for the teacher. Here, a high
school teacher that is normally used to teaching in very set one hour or so blocks now has
the same group of students for the whole day, similar to that of an elementary school
teacher. Because of this, there is little problem in an activity taking many hours or even a
day or more to complete. Likewise, subject outcomes do not have to be evenly disbursed
throughout the day; some days may see more of a focus on biology than English, or
physical education rather than art class. Some programs have even gone a step further:
To free the programs from timetable constraints, many are physically separated from the school itself. For example, some programs operate out of portable buildings on school property, and others bus students off-site to nearby camps or natural areas. Some also involve extensive travel both within Canada and beyond. Outdoor and experiential learning is emphasized, thus students in these programs usually spend the bulk of their time outside the classroom. (Russell & Burton, 2000: 289)
Here obviously the medium of the outdoors is important for such programs, but by
developing a cohort structure this not only allows for a more flexible teaching timetable,
but now also allows for more flexibility in location. Perhaps one of the greatest
difficulties with supplemental outdoor programming is that, by its very use of the
outdoors, it typically requires greater time blocks than high school scheduling allows.
How often can a biology teacher pull students away for full-day field expeditions before
other teachers start to complain about the effects of this on their own classes? With the
natural structure of the integrated outdoor program this major difficulty is overcome.
199
6.1.3 Central Features
Beyond the structure of integrated outdoor programs, we need to consider what
central features are incorporated into such a learning environment. Then I will examine
how such a system benefits students and their academic performance. However, it is the
use of central features, or themes, that allow integrated outdoor programs to become
more than simply a change in structural logistics for the student’s courses.
The main focus of this program [Earthquest, a program also contained in this thesis’s research] is not to make fantastic backcountry skiers, paddlers, hikers, cyclers or climbers; it is to provide students with personal and professional direction, build self-esteem and leadership skills, and to become more responsible citizens. Earthquest facilitators mentor these lessons through the aforementioned outdoor activities. (Comishin & Potter, 2000: 28)
What these programs do not do, however, is change outcomes; student’s learning
objectives are still embedded in actual school-based course outcomes. For example, an
outcome, say a particular writing outcome for English class, is met through a journal
entry during an expedition. The value may have been in the experience, but the graded
outcome for the school has not changed. Thus we may start to see how teachers
developing an integrated outdoor program are more concerned with outdoor education as
method rather than as content.
Bert Horwood (2002a & 1995) outlined six central features for all integrated
programs (note: he referred to these as integrated curricula rather than programs, but a
distinction is made here from previous arguments on curriculum versus pedagogy). These
integrating factors were: (1) experiential learning, (2) whole process, (3) authenticity, (4)
challenge, (5) responsibility and (6) community (Horwood, 2002a: 7). Here, he described
experiential learning as meaning that instruction placed prime value on students having
200
early, first-hand experience with every aspect of the program. The whole process refers to
the experience having a reasonably complete sequence of events and authenticity that
these experiences make a solid connection and relevancy to the student’s real world.
From this, Horwood found that students faced greater challenges in this setting than they
would in a regular school setting, and from this they developed a greater sense of
responsibility to both their studies and their teacher. By utilizing experiential learning,
through a whole process with authenticity, that would provide challenge and increase
responsibility, a strong feeling of community develops in the class and makes it possible
for “individual learning to become common property” (Horwood, 2002a: 7).
Another study found similar patterns for integrated outdoor programs:
Building on the insights of the students in the ESP [Environmental Studies Program, a program included in this thesis’s research], there are four interrelated characteristics of this program, and integrated programs in general, that the two of us find particularly appealing: experiential learning, authenticity, connections to human and natural communities, and holism. (Russell & Burton, 2000: 298)
Here experiential learning and authenticity are obviously the same factors as described in
Horwood’s work, while connections to human and natural communities could be
considered the same as community, and holism being similar to whole process. “Learning
through direct experience is the quintessential factor that integrates curriculum elements.
Direct experience is present to the highest degree possible in outdoor education. On this
count, therefore, the outdoor curriculum stimulated integration of the whole” (Horwood,
2002a: 11). From these key elements of an effective integrated outdoor program, we can
now consider how these programs bring benefit to student learning and growth as
individuals, arguably over and above what the traditional classroom has to offer.
201
6.2 Program Benefits for Students
Obviously with such a specialized thematic teaching environment as outdoor
education requiring a large time commitment of an entire semester for a group of
students, a significant value for such programs would need to be recognized and
established. Here we will begin to see many elements that were considered in the early
chapters on outdoor and experiential education across many learning environments start
to surface again. As such, what becomes important for this discussion is to consider how
these recognized elements can enhance the function of public schooling, and in which
cases do they allow outdoor education to fill a vacancy in the needs of our students.
In my experience, integrated programs like ESP offer a unique alternative to the regular classroom environment. They create an atmosphere where students can develop a love of knowledge, the ability to think critically and creatively, and a respect for our world and for others. In the program, I felt that students became more informed about themselves and about the world in which they live. If the goal of public education is to create engaged and informed citizens who are dedicated to life-long learning, then there should be more integrated programs since they go a long way towards meeting this goal. (Henderson, 2002: 16)
From this description of integrated outdoor programs we can notice that the language
used centers on process-oriented material much more than a specific content. Issues such
as thinking critically and creatively or life-long learning are not sole possessions of
outdoor education. However, as outdoor education in general utilizes experiential
education to enhance its impact on individuals, we can also consider that outdoor
education (using this experiential framework) could do the same for school students. Of
course, what becomes important is not only how we, as educators, consider the possible
value of these programs for students, but also what students perceive as benefits for
learning standard school material in a more novel and holistic approach to the classroom.
202
There have been a number of Canadian studies that have examined student
perception of integrated outdoor programs and how they benefit learning (Horwood,
2002a; Russell & Burton, 2000; Jupp, 1995). From these studies I will discuss key
elements of importance that can be drawn out from such an approach. However, first a
few critical points must be acknowledged. First, with integrated outdoor programming
being such a rare form of outdoor education in schools there is little empirical evidence to
‘conclusively’ state how it beneficially operates in Canada. Secondly, one must view
student opinion with a certain degree of bias. Although we can gain insight into elements
that students feel are important in such programs, all involved had elected to enroll in
such programs; unlike a typical classroom where not all students have chosen to be there.
As such, it does not become a question of whether or not they strongly support such
programs, as they probably do, but wherein they place value for their learned experience.
That being said, general themes do come out of the research that demonstrate
program attributes valued by students which are typically not present, or to a much
smaller degree, in traditional classrooms (particularly at the high school level that
concentrates more on academic achievement rather than individual growth). Jupp (1995)
found four main areas of importance to students: authenticity, empowerment,
responsibility, and personal relations, Russell & Burton (2000) summarized three
important themes: experiential learning, interpersonal skill development, and personal
growth, and Horwood (2002a) indicated patterns valuing three areas: inescapable
consequences, personal growth, and a ‘sense of wonder’. I would propose that all of these
program traits valued by students can be encompassed by distilling them down into two
main areas that I will call (1) authentic learning and (2) personal growth.
203
Authentic Learning. One key aspect of traditional classrooms about which many
teachers hear students complain is that what they are learning doesn’t ‘mean anything’ to
their everyday life. That is not to say that the school curriculum does not have a
connection, but it does mean that it is not apparent to some (or most) students. Where
integrated outdoor programs use existing course outcomes, the relevancy of material has
not changed but the student’s ability to understand and relate to the curriculum has. Thus,
many students in such programs speak highly of the practical nature of their studies.
Theory is taught and learned for a reason – to use it. A Bronte Creek student will not have a single day’s notetaking not used in practice by the end of the semester. …For the students of the Bronte Creek Project, this type of schooling is more authentic than traditional high school – their responsibilities reach beyond work habits and marks. The theory is put to practical use and the outdoor setting makes them feel alive and connected to their subject matter. (Jupp, 1995: 20)
This authenticity in learning styles gives students focus on the material being presented to
them. Students, like many of us, typically do not like to learn material for which they
cannot perceive a functional value. How many of us would want to spend the time to
learn the theory of a musical instrument if we knew we would never be given the chance
to play? Similarly, students in integrated outdoor programs come to understand that
material covered will have, or has already had, relevance to their activities and provided
enhancement for their performance. This, of course, is a major element for experiential
learning in general.
Most students indicated that learning experientially, outdoors, was easier thus more effective for them than a traditional school setting. In the words of one student, ‘we actually did the things we were learning about, instead of just learning about it.’ (Russell & Burton, 2000: 294)
204
One aspect to generating relevancy to real-world scenarios, over the isolated
realm of a traditional classroom was what Horwood (2002a) called ‘inescapable
consequences’. Here he considered that:
Inescapable consequences ensure that experiences have an edge they would lack if the outcomes of the experiences could be evaded. The world of the school is too small to be able to follow the complete process in any enterprise. But when the necessary indoor and outdoor steps are strung together, there is continuity of linked processes and integration is improved. (Horwood, 2002a: 10)
That is to say, because activities and expeditions utilize taught elements in order to
generate successful experiences, students then find this a driving force for their learning.
For example, in a typical traditional classroom a teacher may assign individual projects to
students to complete. In some cases, once finished and collected, the teacher finds that a
number of students did not bother to hand in the material. Of course these students may
be given a final grade on the assignment of zero, but both teacher and student know that
even though they did not do this work, the next day they would move on with the rest of
the class in their studies. If a student did not value grades highly there would be no real
consequences for them not doing, or learning, the material presented to them. In the case
of an integrated outdoor program, the inescapable consequences are generated because if
such an assignment was not completed this could actually cause a particular expedition or
activity to be stopped, or even worse place students in an unsafe environment. For
example, if the student did not fulfill his or her role on an expedition (e.g. data recovery
of the ecosystem visited) then as a class this might negate taking the expedition to the
next survey site. Or in another case, by not preparing material or equipment prior to an
expedition may cause the teacher to deem the trip too risky without the proper knowledge
or skills required for its margin of safety.
205
Personal Growth. The second element of which students speak highly of in these
programs, in many various forms, can be summarized as feeling a great sense of personal
growth from the time they started the program to its culminating end.
Many [students] discussed their increased awareness and knowledge about nature, environmental issues, and environmental action. Others discussed opportunities to learn about and test skills needed in various careers. Others brought up more personal issues, particularly growth in self-awareness, learning patience, trust, and team-work, building self-confidence, and increasing their physical fitness. (Russell & Burton, 2000: 297)
Here, many students considered their personal growth both in terms of intrapersonal, such
as self-awareness and patience, and interpersonal, such as trust and team-work. In most
cases, students spoke more of how to use the knowledge gained rather than a greater
value placed on the knowledge itself. That is to say, by linking their learning with actual
activity, students became empowered with their growth in knowledge content. Again, this
would imply value being placed on these activities as process rather than just content.
From this, students also noted how empowering action strengthened their views on
personal responsibility.
Personal growth makes experience have personal meaning, as distinct from academic or impersonal meaning. Outdoor education provides the most pointed demands for responsibility, and students know when they rise to that demand. The challenge of apparently impossible outdoor events enables students to probe their perception of limits, both for themselves and others, which includes the artificial limits of subject-specific learning. (Horwood, 2002a: 11)
Here we see how students perceive their personal growth in terms of rising to challenging
circumstances, perhaps one of the most fundamental notions that James (1910) spoke of
for outdoor education providing a moral equivalent to war where individuals could build
206
virtue in the face of adversity, as a means to the commitment of the common good (see
section 2.2.1 of this thesis).
In addition to this gain in intrapersonal growth, the structure of these integrated
outdoor programs allows for a greater interpersonal framework, and one very similar to
early elementary school classrooms.
In a program more akin to the elementary model where students spend the entire day with one teacher and one group of peers, there is greater opportunity for students to get to know one another and more attention is devoted to learning how to work as a team. (Russell & Burton, 2000: 296)
It is important to note that this strong sense of teamwork, which is rarely present in most
traditional high school classrooms, is strengthened by the very nature of the age of the
students being older than in elementary grades and by these programs instilling a sense of
empowerment and responsibility. From this, students have a greater opportunity to work
collectively, but due to these changes in maturity from earlier years, can do so now with
more autonomy from the teacher. Here this allows the teacher to become more of a
facilitator than they could in an elementary school model, and thereby again increasing
the impact that such a methodology has on group work and social dynamics among the
students.
All of these characteristics of personal growth for students were seen to be
enhanced by the physical and socially unfamiliar environment of the outdoors requiring a
greater degree of teamwork. However, it has been suggested that another element plays
into this: a sense of wonder.
The sense of wonder brings emotional validation to processes that are otherwise mostly intellectual. Experiences are put into a context that includes intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and social elements. Students marvel at the cumulative, creative effect of linked steps in complete processes. (Horwood, 2002a: 11)
207
Here students commit more than just simply intellectual energies as they would in a
regular classroom. The cumulative effect of these programs, both individually and
collectively, draws out other aspects of learning, including the emotional connection for
learning. Shared experiences within a group generate a bonding effect that strengthens
the learning moment. Students interviewed after such programs have often indicated how
many of their other classmates who did not take the outdoor program ‘wouldn’t
understand’ or ‘won’t get it’ in terms of how transformative such experiences have
become for them.
In addition to this work, the Lieberman and Hoody Study (1998) for the State
Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER) in the United States found similar
results as was established for these Canadian programs. More importantly, the extensive
nature of this study (over 40 individual programs involved) has given perhaps the only
published work that has empirically examined this issue of integrated program benefits
for students to this degree of magnitude, and has been used as a key foundation point for
further research (for such examples see Comishin, et al, 2004, and Russell & Burton,
2000). It has been summarized that:
Through their examination of standardized test, samples of curricular materials, student work, and interviews with teachers, administrators, and students, Lieberman and Hoody provide solid evidence that integrated environmental programs can have positive outcomes. For example, they documented a significant improvement in student performance in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies. Further, they concluded that such programs have the potential to: (1) ground learning in authentic ‘real world’ experience; (2) demonstrate links between subject areas; (3) foster responsibility, collaboration and a sense of community; (4) increase and enhance student-teacher contact; and (5) improve relations among students. (Comishin, et al, 2004: 48)
208
Here we see similar themes surface as seen in the Canadian studies, such as authentic
‘real-world’ experience, responsibility, and community. They also pointed to the benefits
of greater student-teacher contact, which is a similar notion that many such as Dewey,
Schön and Freire thought to be of critical importance for experiential education in
general. This study is perhaps of even greater critical importance for schools and teachers
since they not only examined the more global benefits of such programs for students but
they also linked this to increased performance in more skill-based school subjects such as
reading, math and science. This would be of particular interest to bring to the attention of
any administration for teachers attempting to start up such integrated outdoor programs as
it speaks directly to values that the greater educational system view as fundamentally
important, and thus helps counter the tacit perception that outdoor education is ‘just
playing in the woods’.
It has been noted however, that even though such integrated outdoor programs
offer substantial benefits to student learning, there is a potential that such intense but
limited durational exposure to experiential education may weaken its lasting effects on
students.
It [experiential learning] opened their eyes to a whole new way of thinking about their education; however, it should not be expected to completely transform their paradigm. It simply did not have enough time… Perhaps we can start by extending their experience. Not so much in the programme, but through a support network created once the programme is over. (Hobson, 1996: 28)
This, of course, is a similar argument as presented in Chapter Two of this thesis when
discussing transference and rites of passage. It is not only the degree of isomorphism
between the outdoor experience and the student’s usual social network that is important,
but the degree that transformative experiences can be maintained after such a program (if
209
general society does not recognize the transformed moment as a rite of passage). Indeed,
this can be considered a particular limitation of integrated outdoor programs: due to their
intensive nature, typically there is little, if any, follow-up support for students after the
integrated outdoor programs are complete. However, with the limited number of such
programs, and the corresponding research and literature, this question has not been able
to be addressed specifically in this context and thus we must rely on the more general
arguments for sustained exposure to outdoor education already presented in this thesis.
But this is not the only obstacle that integrated outdoor programs must face.
210
6.3 Barriers for Implementation
Similar to curricula-based outdoor programming, although there is established
student benefits in learning by using integrated outdoor programming there are many
barriers that hinder a more widespread implementation of such an approach. Many of the
general themes in possible barriers branch across to both curricula-based and integrated
programming, but a few that will be discussed here appear to dominate more of one
program style than the other.
The most immediately noticeable difference between the two programming
methods is that there appears to be a much greater time commitment for integrated
outdoor programs. Here, it is not simply the extra time that teachers need to devote
during field expeditions and trip planning, but it spans over to the entire logistics and
development of a complete integrated program. Teachers now are required to promote the
program, select student participation (typically done with application and student
interviews the year prior to the program), program budgeting, and most importantly
redesigning the implementation of four regular school courses around a thematic outdoor
approach, not to mention typically having to teach outcomes from four different courses
at once and doing so without release or prep time during the program. Also, this stress
placed on available time is intensified if a teacher is attempting to bring such an
integrated program into their school or board for the first time.
There is a substantial amount of preparation required in getting the program initially off the ground, continually adapting it to comply with new Ministry of Education curriculum guidelines, changing Board priorities, internal school politics, and teacher contract issues concerning teaching and supervision time. Moreover, the amount of time required to organize it on a yearly basis is substantial. (Russell & Burton, 2000: 299)
211
This need of ‘continually adapting’ to curriculum guidelines and board policies is
another barrier that appears in a different form than with curricula-based outdoor
programming. In curricula-based programming, typically the initiative was developed at a
higher administrative level than the classroom teacher, one that allowed those designing
such curriculum to maintain a consistency with other projects and curriculum directions,
or to modify such directions as to allow for outdoor education. Yet, in the typical
integrated outdoor program the creators tend to be ‘simply’ very talented classroom
teachers who have no substantial voice in policy direction.
The greatest difficulty [while developing integrated curriculum] was adhering to the ministry’s need for coherent units that meet curricular expectations while remaining true to the reality that, in a fully integrated interdisciplinary package, learning refuses to move forward in a strictly linear fashion or to be bound by static curricular units. (Barrett, 2002: 5)
The above quote is an example of conflicts arising when a group of teachers were
attempting to ‘streamline’ concepts of integrated programs at the administrative level.
Here at this level of education, the focus becomes what school subjects ‘look like’ in
terms of curriculum units and corresponding documentation rather than the ‘how’ of
implementation. Thus, we see that an emphasis on outdoor education as process (as in
integrated programming) rather than content (as in curricula-based programming) means
the teacher no longer speaks as directly to the dominant political language of a system
that is driven by curricular outcomes.
In addition, by shifting away from curricular outcomes to a more thematic
learning style, integrated outdoor programs also generate more difficulties with aligning
assessment strategies to the larger educational system. “The dilemma is whether to
evaluate student learning to fit discipline-based expectations, or to evaluate on the basis
212
of integration” (Horwood, 2002b: 4). Is it fair to create a learning environment that
promotes teamwork and critical thinking only to then grade students on standardized
content recovery that aligns with the traditional courses which it utilizes? Although, this
certainly brings forward a valued question, most integrated outdoor programs have been
able to function successfully in public schools by doing just that. However, it is
interesting to note in the literature that many students place great value on the experience
of the program as actually overriding any academic credit acknowledgement. This
possibly suggests that students involved in such programs have moved on to model II
double-loop learning where they have reframed their perception of grades versus the
value of personal growth that is not as easily assessed or credited by an institution.
Of course, it is not only a matter of teachers finding that a rift can develop
between their programs and the Department of Education or school board level, but also
within their school. The shift away from the emphasis of outdoor education as content
and towards process can create a similar limiting perception of such programs with
principals and staff of a school.
Each [of the teachers surveyed] described several instances where they felt a lack of support when developing their own integrated program. Examples included administrators who constantly demanded justification of the pedagogical approach, administrators who worried about increased risk and liability issues on trips, colleagues who felt that pure disciplines were preferable to ‘watered-down’ interdisciplinary approaches and who considered outdoor programs to be of little academic value; and colleagues who felt that the existence of an integrated program in the school would threaten the viability of their own departments. (Comishin, et al, 2004: 50)
Here, teachers cannot rely on any validation brought down from higher levels of
administration to support the existence of their programs, as could be the case for
curricula-based outdoor programs that operate under documented and established school
213
board outcomes. Of course, with the limited number of such integrated outdoor programs
operating in schools, “another ongoing problem is convincing skeptics of the value of
integration by gathering data” (Horwood, 2002b: 4). Many principals, administrators, and
even staff can potentially be swayed in their perceptions of outdoor education if it is
substantially backed-up with ‘facts’ adhering to model I technical rationality. This is
certainly a circumstance that can demonstrate the need for outdoor education research in
schools in order to advance such understanding of it as a pedagogical approach. By
considering how the school system would view integrated outdoor programs, this places
the argument back into political terms, where the value of such programs cannot simply
be thought of as being clearly understood by the larger institution.
An integrated program does not operate in a vacuum and effort must go into harnessing any possible support and developing strategic alliances. … The teachers also stressed the importance of always being prepared to justify the existence of the program, as many people will not value it as much as its creators. Documenting the learning outcomes of the program, collecting student materials that demonstrate significant learning, keeping a scrapbook of photographs and positive publicity, and being aware of research that supports the existence of such programs are all helpful strategies. (Comishin, et al, 2004: 50)
In addition to these more global barriers for integrated outdoor programs that deal
significantly with the overall educational governing body, there are still a number of
barriers that operate within such programs. Although most have already been addressed,
Horwood (2002a: 12) considered four major problems arising from integrated packages:
(1) the administrative difficulty of finding adequate blocks of time, (2) the dominance of
assessment for grades in most school systems, (3) budget constraints, and (4) lack of
teachers competent in both school subjects and outdoor leadership. Others have also
considered similar barriers to integration; Comishin, et al, (2004: 49) outlined five
214
common challenges in developing and implementing integrated programs: (1) funding
constraints, (2) insufficient support from administrators and colleagues, (3) time
constraints, (4) liability and risk management, and (5) inadequate skills and
qualifications. Of the barriers not previously discussed, this leads us to examine internal
factors that affect an integrated program: funding, risk management, and teacher
qualifications.
Certainly funding support and risk management can be considered vital, but also
logistical in nature. That is to say, most would agree that effective fundraising and careful
risk assessment should be an ongoing emphasis for the success of such programs. More
fundamental to this issue, perhaps even encompassing the areas of cost and risk
management, is the qualifications of the teacher. This is a similar consideration for any
outdoor program designed for public schools as to whether the teacher has a sufficient
background in outdoor education to be able to run such a program. However, this is
intensified with integrated outdoor programs because now the teacher not only has to be a
specialist in the field of outdoor education but also must master curriculum design for a
broader range of school subjects that are to be integrated into a thematically taught
cohort. This is particularly challenging at the high school level where teachers have often
already separated into specialized fields.
The teachers [surveyed] mentioned that there was, in fact, a limited pool of teachers qualified to teach these programs, given the emphasis on experiential pedagogy and outdoor skills. … In their opinion, an ideal integrated program teacher not only needs to have experience teaching, but also an understanding of how to integrate subjects, a strong foundation in environmental education, all the required certifications to teach outdoor skills, and in-depth knowledge of the local area. (Comishin, et al, 2004: 52)
215
Once again we see the value of teacher training arising in this discussion. More
critical, however, is the need for teachers to possess the experience, skills, and training
not only in terms of outdoor education curriculum and pedagogy (and the differences
between the two) but also the same base-set within the requirements for a general public
school teacher who must learn to negotiate assessment and delivery practices among
many other varied subjects. It is interesting to note how the issue of teacher training
seems to intertwine amongst most issues perceived as barriers to integration of outdoor
education in public schools, and may perhaps even suggest that addressing teacher
training may alleviate some of these other issues. I will return to this discussion in
Chapter Eight after a detailed examination of this thesis’s primary research presented in
the next chapter.
216
6.4 The Blending of Curriculum and Pedagogy
Throughout this discussion of integrated outdoor programming, and its
corresponding literature, it is interesting to note that there is a perception that teachers
view outdoor education as pedagogy much more than they do as curriculum. This is in
contrast to the work presented for curricula-based outdoor programming where there
appears to be much discussion on where the value of outdoor education for schools
should lie, in terms of curriculum or pedagogy. However, a more critical examination of
integrated outdoor programming suggests that this question may not be as clear-cut as the
espoused theories of the teachers involved would suggest.
When studying the various existing programs utilizing an integrated approach for
outdoor education, it can become apparent that although these programs do center around
and use some key courses in their design, such as English or biology, many, if not most,
also encompass more alternative courses, such as co-op credits, generalized
interdisciplinary courses, and locally-developed and approved courses specializing in
environmental topics. Many of these alternate course offerings can provide a much more
flexible arrangement of course outcomes that allow for better streaming of outdoor
education. That is to say, perhaps these courses are selected because they already
potentially contain the curriculum of outdoor education but in a different manifestation.
For example, in the co-op credits of some integrated outdoor programs, students develop
and lead other outdoor programs for elementary students (Russell & Burton, 2000; Jupp,
1995). Here the course outcomes for a co-op credit are aligned to encompass the
curriculum of other outdoor education activities. Thus, it may be considered that the use
217
of outdoor education curriculum may not be implicit for these integrated outdoor
programs, but that it may be present nonetheless.
Therefore, a difficulty arises with the potential that integrated outdoor education
teachers may have an espoused theory that outdoor education has value as pedagogy, but
a theory-in-use that operates outdoor education as both pedagogy and curriculum.
Personally, I tend to lean towards outdoor education as pedagogy, but with the careful
examination of this field, it does not become apparently possible at this state of play for
anyone to truly state which form outdoor education conclusively represents. Of course,
from the programs and literature presented so far, it may be argued as to whether or not
outdoor education could potentially be both. In acknowledging this potential, it still
becomes important, if not more so, to distinguish the two forms of outdoor education.
This becomes crucial, as many who oppose such programs in schools often offer up
defenses that focus on one form while presenting how they do not meet the expectations
of the other form. For example, an administrator may criticize a particular environmental
course as not being needed since its content material is present in another ‘established’
science course, yet the emphasis in this environmental course may center on the delivery
approach and its localized setting as a field-course rather than as a specialized content. If
practicing teachers distinguish outdoor education when used as pedagogy versus
curriculum, this reframing of their profession and practice allows the potential to
overcome many learning binds that are generated by this existing duality.
218
Chapter 7 – Qualitative Analysis of Canadian Integrated Outdoor Programs
7.1 Articulating the Position of Outdoor Education in Schools
While examining the current state of outdoor education in public schools, as
discussed in the previous chapters, three key aspects of interplay between these two
instructional systems emerged: (1) lack of research, (2) a dichotomy between outdoor
education as pedagogy and as curriculum, and (3) teacher training and certification in the
field of outdoor education in public schools.
First, there is relatively little research, in comparison to other educational fields,
on how outdoor education has been utilized by public schools (as has been outlined in the
last two chapters of this thesis). This is not to say that no literature exists for outdoor
education in schools, but that a great deal of what has been written examines other focus
areas such as gender and cultural shifts in outdoor programming, ecological impacts of
outdoor education, therapy use of the wilderness for at-risk youth, sustainability, and
inclusion practices just to name a few. Yet, it could be argued that these studies
pertaining to outdoor education in schools have been constantly attempting to confirm the
benefits of the why for bringing these fields together but not the how. That is to say, there
appears to be a tacit assumption that outdoor education programs in schools would
operate in a similar manner as they do in other areas, including the recreational adventure
industry. (However, this is a generalization of the overall research field of outdoor
education and how it pertains to public schools, and some research does exist that
examines the how. For examples, see: Ives & Obenchain, 2006; Comishin, et al, 2004;
Horwood, 2002a; Russell & Burton, 2000.)
219
This brings us to the second key aspect of outdoor education in schools. If we are
to critically examine how outdoor education operates in public schools, then a distinction
needs to be made as to the purpose of utilizing this field of education: is it
methodological, as pedagogy, or is it centered on content, as curriculum? The reason
suggested for this clarification is that by each approach, the use (and limitation) of
outdoor education can be framed differently based on the program objectives, as
described in the previous chapters of this thesis. This is not to say that programs may not
attempt to blend both uses of outdoor education (pedagogy and curriculum) in practice,
but it is important to identify when the how of practice is changing. In other words, do we
see a change in approach to practice when teachers use outdoor education either as
curriculum or pedagogy, and in doing so does this suggest a different set of conditions
that operate and define each use? By examining this issue, it would allow for a more
articulated argument and also a broader understanding of the interrelations of outdoor
education in public schools, and how the two systems may benefit each other.
This leads to the final key aspect of these programs: teacher training. As it has
been shown that the understanding of the how of outdoor education practices in public
schools, beyond the required training and experience in wilderness pursuits, may be
limited and varying, this demonstrates a need to unify this practice into one coherent
form. That is not to say that we require all outdoor education programs to look and act the
same, but rather that fundamentally each teacher needs to understand the role of their
program along the spectrum of possibilities ranging from purely a pedagogical approach
to purely a curriculum base, and every amalgam in-between.
220
7.1.1 Purpose and Role of Primary Research Study
To address the issues of limited research, pedagogy versus curriculum, and
teacher training and certification, a preliminary qualitative case study was undertaken for
this thesis. Although this primary research will add to the existing work being done in
this field, it neither intends to be conclusive nor to radically alter the landscape of outdoor
education in schools. Instead, it endeavours to shed more light on how outdoor education
is being implemented in public schools, by examining its roles as pedagogy and/or
curriculum, and in so doing it can provide insight into further needs for teacher training in
this area. As such, this research study should be considered supplementary, not
conclusive, to the work presented in this thesis. This preliminary research is intended to
be supportive in nature: it has been undertaken as a means to determine whether the
arguments of this thesis, in terms of outdoor education in schools operating as either
pedagogy and/or curriculum, could be noticed as an undercurrent in the dialogue of
practicing outdoor classroom teachers. By this approach, it must be noted that this
preliminary study represents only a small portion of this thesis and, although it does help
to support the arguments presented here, this dissertation does not critically hinge on the
results.
By keeping to a Canadian examination for this study, it would have been
beneficial to be able to look at both curricula-based and integrated outdoor programming;
however, the lack of strong curricula-based programs in Canada proved problematic. As
such, the key emphasis for this contributing primary research was the examination of
integrated outdoor programming. The larger scheme of supplemental outdoor
programming was avoided because of the difficulty in establishing actual strong linkages
221
to goals of public schools versus the espoused theories that almost all such programs
claim. With integrated outdoor programming there is a clear documented need to
establish outdoor education activities directly relating to enhancement of school-based
outcomes and objectives. However, by selecting only integrated outdoor programs this
created a much more limited sampling population to use for such a study.
Currently, there are at least 40 integrated environmental studies programs operating in Canadian secondary schools; most are in Ontario, some others are in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, and British Columbia. (Comishin, et al, 2004: 48)
Previous studies have found that the majority of such programs were located in Ontario,
having 26 such integrated programs alone (Crawley, 2003). It is interesting to note that
while Ontario has a very high number of the relatively few integrated outdoor programs
in Canada, British Columbia has over half of all outdoor adventure companies in Canada
(Cloutier, 2005). Perhaps a strong correlation for this situation is that Ontario has the two
most established outdoor-orientated teacher training programs in Canada, at Queens
University and Lakehead University (other universities do offer some outdoor education
courses, but these are the only two that have attempted to bring them together into a
distinct offered program).
In addition, with the noticeable increase of such school-based programs, there is
no body of work that can suggest if these programs are actually on the rise or merely
becoming more visible to researchers and their corresponding literature fields in the last
few decades. Certainly it can be assumed that either growth or exposure could perhaps be
increasing the apparent number simply because of the ever increasing emphasis on
environmental issues and sustainability upon which our society is currently focused.
However, a discussion on the relation between outdoor adventure education and
222
environmental education will be left for the moment and addressed later in this thesis,
once this preliminary research is presented.
It is important to note that this work will not attempt to ‘justify’ outdoor education
in schools, but rather examine the approach, or how, of such interplay. The primary
reason for this is a very obvious assumption that can be made: all school teachers
involved in this study have a strong bias as to perceive outdoor education as a significant
source of excellence for student learning and growth. This assumption will go untested in
this work, as the focus is not to establish the validity of such outdoor programming, as it
is felt that previous work, already outlined in this thesis, has been published to address
this issue. What will be important to examine is the teachers’ perceptions of why and how
such programs do so much for student learning that they implicitly feel they accomplish.
223
7.2 Research Methodology
As mentioned in the previous section, the research undertaken for this thesis was
designed to be supplementary, not conclusive, in nature. As such, extensive and rigorous
model testing was not undertaken, nor did I commit to any particular interpretive
methodology. This work might even be considered as a pilot study, so that the framework
and results presented here could be used as a future launch point for a more extensive
research study into the role of outdoor education as pedagogy and/or curriculum in
schools in Canada and/or elsewhere in the world. That being said, the rationale, approach,
and structure of this research study will now be outlined.
7.2.1 Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Analysis
There were two primary reasons for selecting a qualitative research analysis over
a quantitative one for this thesis. First, pragmatically, integrated outdoor programming is
of such a small size in Canada that it could not provide the volume of work for a
conclusive empirical study to quantitatively ‘prove’ any position in this field. Second, it
was felt that a qualitative analysis would be more sensitive to teacher back-talk of this
field (LeCompte, Millroy, Preissle, 1992), and that ‘confounding variables’ in outdoor
education add a greater degree of complexity to research analysis (Ewert & Sibthorp,
2009). Because of the significant interpersonal experiences faced by both teacher and
students, integrated outdoor programs must be looked at as a whole rather than
attempting to dissect it into parts, as each part plays a critical role in the other.
The most appropriate method for investigating the lived experience of teaching is a qualitative one. The reduction of human experience to numbers or standard descriptive phrases, as is often the case in quantitative research, does little to inform the reader of the actual
224
experience of the people involved. Teaching is a very human experience, a very emotional project and, therefore, the lived experience of teaching can be affected by a wide variety of factors. The time of the year, time of the week and time of day can all have significant impacts. Outside-of-school experiences will impact on teachers’ and students’ inside-school experience; location of the school and even the weather can make a difference. With teaching providing such a diversity of possible experiences in a wide range of contexts any attempt to establish a priori variables, as is required in quantitative research, becomes extremely difficult. Qualitative methodologies provide a more apposite means of researching complex human experience. (Gunn, 2006: 29)
Therefore, the attempt of this research study is to carefully examine how the teachers
contextualize their programs, roles, and significant contributions to student learning and
enrichment, while at the same time being sensitive to any possible inconsistencies
between programs or among comments from the same teacher as to imply possible tacit
espoused theories that may have gone untested.
7.2.2 Participant Recruitment
Two methods were used to solicit participation from teachers for this primary
research, both of which are included in Appendix A. The first involved placing an ad
requesting involvement in the November 2008 electronic newsletter of the Council of
Outdoor Educators of Ontario (COEO), the space for which was offered by the COEO as
a means to support my work in this field. The COEO is the largest, and perhaps the only,
Canadian teacher’s organization dedicated to outdoor education and, according to the
newsletter editor has a current membership and newsletter subscription of over four
hundred. Although they primarily draw from Ontario, membership is represented in most
provinces across the country. Unfortunately, this ad only solicited three responses: one
from an established but non-integrated outdoor program and two from teachers who were
225
using outdoor education in their classrooms but without specialized programs. However,
such a limited response was not surprising considering how very busy teachers of
integrated programs tend to be.
The second, and more successful, method involved conducting a detailed internet
search of all possible integrated programs in Canada, and then contacting each
individually to request their participation. The limitation of this method meant that any
programs contacted were required to have a web presence in order to be identified.
Fourteen such programs were found and contacted, and this number would roughly
represent one third of all the integrated programs currently being run in Canada
(Comishin, et al, 2004: 48), although there would be a constant state of fluctuation of
such programs as teachers change schools, budgets are modified, or other factors either
create or terminate such programs. Of the fourteen contacted, ten indicated a willingness
to participate in this research, but three, with regrets, eventually had to pull out as they
could not find the time to complete the survey. Seven programs still represents a good
number of integrated programs, and, more importantly, to date is the highest number of
such Canadian integrated outdoor programs to provide feedback in a single survey. In
addition, feedback came from a total of eleven different teachers, each completing an
individual survey, as some integrated programs use more than one teacher in their
operation.
These seven integrated programs span three provinces: four in Ontario, two in
Saskatchewan, and one in British Columbia, and represent an equivalent distribution of
all integrated programs across Canada, with larger density being present in Ontario. What
is very positive about this survey research is the wealth of experience and knowledge of
226
these eleven teachers from which it draws. These programs represent, for the most part,
the longest and most successful integrated programs in Canada, with the exception being
the Bronte Creek Project, which declined to participate due to time constraints. For this
research there was a combined total of 209 years of public school teaching, with the
average of teacher having taught for 17 years. Likewise, this group represents 233 years
of outdoor experience, and an average of 19 years for each teacher. More importantly,
these teachers have a total of 176 years running integrated programs, with an average of
15 years each, and a combined total of 22 different programs, as the average teacher has
been involved with 1.8 different integrated programs. The most experienced teachers had
38 years in the traditional school-based and outdoor education fields, and had participated
in 4 different integrated outdoor programs. For their own initial training in outdoor
education, four indicated learning through university courses/programs, six gave credit to
gaining industry certifications, and seven referred to having developed a personal
experience base from which to draw. With such contribution and feedback, it is
considered that these veteran teachers’ voices, in the form of this research, will speak
well to the overall scope of integrated outdoor programs being offered across Canada.
7.2.3 Ethics Review and University Requirements
The application for the primary research undertaken for this thesis was first
reviewed and approved by Simon Fraser University’s Office of Research Ethics, and had
to meet all the requirements in the use of human subjects. This research project was
categorized as ‘minimal risk’ in accordance with University policy R20.01.
227
As per university guidelines, each research participant signed an Informed
Consent form (see Appendix B), the final draft of which was approved by the Office of
Research Ethics. The informed consent document addressed and outlined many issues for
the participants, including their right to withdraw from the study at any time, the rational
for conducting the research, how the research data was to be used and handled, and who
to contact at the university if they had any concerns. In addition, this form indicated that
no names or case studies would be individually documented without the approval of the
participant. While maintaining their corresponding gender, the names presented in the
analysis section of this research study have been changed to protect the anonymity of the
participants.
7.2.4 Structure and Analysis of Research Survey
The original research for this thesis was intended to be conducted in two parts:
first an open semi-structured survey, in which each participant could give their individual
input, was to be completed; this was to be followed by a second survey that was to rank
all responses and have participants comment on the collective summaries. This second
survey was intended to provide a participant-checking mechanism to ensure reliability of
the data. However, following the initial survey, five of the eleven participants declined
further involvement in this study due to personal time constraints. As such, the intention
of the second survey could not be achieved. This was considered acceptable due to the
fact that the research presented here was not intended to be rigorously conclusive in
nature, but rather simply intended to shed some additional insight into the arguments
presented in this dissertation.
228
Each of the eleven teachers involved in this primary research completed the first
original survey questionnaire, which can be found in Appendix C. The survey was
comprised of a series of questions pertaining to their perceptions of the roles and
successes of outdoor education in schools, teacher requirements for such programs, what
benefits such programs have for students, and other similar questions. In order to allow
teachers to flesh out any points that they felt were critical for such a discussion, the
survey feedback took the form of descriptive open-ended semi-structured text that always
permitted additional comments and clarification. By not wanting to ‘guide’ the responses,
this open format allowed participants the opportunity to add further points that may not
have originally been considered in the design of the survey but that could still provide
valuable information on the issues examined.
The questions contained in the survey were carefully selected. An emphasis was
placed on questions pertaining to teacher training and qualifications, but no explicit
questions were asked in terms of their consideration of outdoor education as pedagogy
versus curriculum. This was intentional in order to determine how the participant’s
language would naturally frame outdoor education, without possibly adding a biased
view considering it distinctively as method or content. Thus the intention of this research
was to address the key three aspects of Canadian integrated outdoor programs described
in this chapter: (1) the lack of research, done through the existence of this preliminary
research itself, (2) the dichotomy between outdoor education as pedagogy and as
curriculum, through indirect feedback on the surveys, and (3) teacher training and
certification in the field of outdoor education in public schools, through direct feedback
in the surveys.
229
Although all teacher feedback was integrated into the summaries for the questions
presented in this chapter, based on some individuals giving only point form or little
description versus those that provided more detailed reflection, some voices have been
quoted more than others (although all have been quoted to some degree in the next
sections). However, each teacher’s response was still given equal weight in the analysis.
This equal weighting of participating teachers was achieved by indexing their responses
to questions into codifiable positions. For each question, the participant’s response was
distilled down to a key position (only for the purposes of indexing), such as yes/no, in
favor or against, important factor #1, 2, 3, etc. Each participant’s response, or sub-set,
was categorized into an already existing point from another survey, or another key point
was added to the index. These annotated responses were then sorted into like groupings
to ensure the discussion of these results were representative of all the given feedback
from each survey.
For example, for Question 1, in section 7.4, participants were asked to comment
of what kind of ‘success’ they felt they were having with their teaching programs. In this
case, every teacher’s response ended up falling into one of four categories: academic
connections (4 related comments), sense of community (6 related comments), practical
skill development (3 related comments), and personal growth and development (5 related
comments). From the number of comments it can be seen that some of the teacher’s
responses had been further broken down and divided amongst the categories, as they had
spoken to more than one issue. In all cases, participant feedback was taken into account,
even though some descriptions and quotes leaned more to one teacher than the other (in
this case, of the eleven teachers only two were quoted for this question).
230
Following an initial descriptive overview of the participating programs in the next
section, responses to key questions will be outlined in section 7.4, followed by a
discussion of the generalized trends that emerged from the surveys. Not all questions
from the survey will be discussed here, only the ones that generated significant or
differing feedback from the participating teachers. In some cases there were questions in
which teachers reinforced or re-stated comments already discussed in previous questions,
creating a redundancy in the survey, but at the same time ensuring that their views were
established by possibly addressing them in one question and not the other.
231
7.3 Overview of Participating Integrated Programs
Listed here is a very brief overview of each of the seven integrated programs that
participated in the research survey. Although the programs will be identified here, as
previously mentioned, individual teacher feedback will remain anonymous. Names have
been changed when discussing the survey results, while maintaining gender, and will not
be linked to the actual programs.
Community Environmental Leadership Programs (CELP) (Gad, Dalziel & Elrick,
2009). Located in Guelph, Ontario, CELP is actually two separate programs; the original
CELP that is offered at the grade 10 level, and a new program called Headwaters which
is offered in grade 12. Three teachers work together to run these two programs, and in
addition to the focus on community, environment, and leadership there is a strong
connection to English programming. CELP integrates the school courses of English,
Career Studies (0.5 credit), Civics (0.5 credit), Outdoor Activities, and Interdisciplinary
Studies, while Headwaters integrates the school courses of Outdoor Activities, English or
Canadian Literature, Environment and Resource Management, and Interdisciplinary
Studies.
EarthQuest (Reid & Reid, 2009). Located in Vernon, British Columbia,
EarthQuest is one of the longest running integrated outdoor programs in Canada, perhaps
even the longest. With its mountainous location, EarthQuest offers conceivably the most
adventurous of program styles, incorporating backcountry skiing, mountaineering,
kayaking, rock climbing, and cycling. However, as with any of these programs, it is
solidly grounded in curriculum by integrating the school courses of English, Physical
Education and Leadership, Earth Science, and Fine Arts for grade 11 students.
232
EcoQuest (Thompson & Loeffler, 2009). Located in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
EcoQuest is possibly unique in integrated outdoor programs in Canada as it is offered at
the junior high school level. Here grade 8 students enroll in the program for the full
school year, not just a single semester as is the case for the high school integrated
programs. Students apply and are selected from a number of neighboring schools and
brought together for a program that focuses on what it calls the three ‘challenges’ of
academic, physical, and emotional. It does so while fulfilling all requirements for grade 8
including the course outcomes of language arts, math, science, social studies, art,
physical education, career education, and health.
Environmental Studies Program (ESP) (Burton, 2009). Located in Flesherton,
Ontario, ESP offers an outdoor education program solidly built on experiential education
theory. Students spend approximately 75% of the regular school day out of the school
classroom learning first hand about the environment. At the grade 12 level, students earn
course credits in Environment and Resource Management, Outdoor Physical Education,
Interdisciplinary Studies, and Physical Geography. This is one of a few programs that use
course outcomes in Interdisciplinary Studies to have its high school students develop and
lead supplemental outdoor programs for elementary school students (other programs do
so using a co-op credit), and thereby also allowing an avenue for fundraising.
Northern Outdoor Studies Program (NOS) (Pomeroy & Gillis, 2009). Located in
Bancroft, Ontario, NOS has a very distinct focus for outdoor education as being centered
on career and industry skill development for students. Since 1997, this program has been
preparing students for direct entry into the work force with employers in selected sectors
such as logging, resource and wildlife management, and ecotourism. Offered for both
233
grade 11 and 12 students, NOS integrates the school courses of Designing Your Future,
Environment and Resource Management, Co-op, and The Enterprising Person, all being
particular specialty courses designed for workforce transition skills.
Tamarack (Patterson, 1995). Once located in Deep River, Ontario, Tamarack is
the only program in this survey set that has transitioned from one teacher to another, and
is also the only program that is no longer in operation. Having been provided survey
results from John Steer, the second teacher who took over this program from its
originator, Bill Patterson, it was hoped that some insight would be gained as to why a
solid program could be shut down; unfortunately this was not to be the case, but a good
contribution for this research was still gained for a program that had grade 11 students
earn course credit in Earth and Space Science, English, Healthy Active Living, and
Physical Geography.
TREK School (Notenboom, 2009). Located in Regina, Saskatchewan, TREK
School has a similar name to a program offered in Vancouver, BC, but no association
between the two was determined. This program offers outdoor education for grade 11
students by integrating with the school courses of Biology, Geography, Math,
Communications Production Technology, and Physical Education. It was not determined
whether students gained five credits for this semestered program or whether they had a
choice of one elective to drop.
234
7.4 Teacher Feedback of Research Survey
To speak to the overall discussion of this thesis, the teacher survey feedback was
later categorized into five key areas: Outdoor education as pedagogy and as curriculum,
formal and alternate teacher training, and the potential of a formal relation between
outdoor education and public schools.
7.4.1 Outdoor Education as Pedagogy
As the teacher survey intentionally did not refer to the role of outdoor education
as either pedagogy or curriculum, it was therefore very interesting to note how most of
the teacher dialogue placed a strong value on the benefits to the methodology of outdoor
education. Questions from the raw survey data have been grouped here that emphasize
this relation of their programs to what many considered the personal development (and
empowerment) of the student.
1) What kinds of “success” do you feel you are having in your teaching?
Four key aspects of success were a continuing theme in most of the discussions of
this question. First, academic improvement was clearly identified. Comments included
how the curriculum became ‘real’ for the students, or that students became more engaged
and did better work. Also noted was the ability for students to show different strengths
from what they demonstrate in a school classroom. In particular, it was commented that
“academically, graduates of the program most often out perform previous academic
standings and are able to identify their specific learning styles” (Kate). Secondly, the
importance of ‘hands-on’ and community learning was noticed to dominate their
235
discussions. This primarily included bringing students closer to the natural environment
and the student’s reframed understanding of their own community. The idea of ‘fostering
connections’, ‘immersing students’, and ‘greater appreciation’ were concepts used in
terms of student and environment interplay. Thirdly, a number of teachers spoke of more
practical benefits for students including numerous certifications and ‘hands-on’ skills for
future employment. Others spoke in terms of more global benefits such as citizenship and
transference of views into the student’s adult lives. Lastly, it was very common for
teachers to speak of success in greater personal growth and development for their
students. This included such issues as students understanding real consequences for
decisions made, passions for lifelong learning, being more comfortable in their
interpersonal relationships, being excited about school, and developing a sense of
adventure. One respondent commented that “I hope that helping them to become more
connected to and articulate about their own experience will help them to
know/understand their own values and promote behaviours that are consistent with these”
(Claire).
2) What is the role of the outdoors in education?
Two fundamental points emerged about the teachers’ perceptions of the role of
their programs. First, they predominately viewed outdoor education as providing an
experiential framework for students, which in many cases they commented was lacking
in traditional classrooms. Second, there was a running theme that suggested the
development of personal skills and attributes was underlying much of their practice. Two
teachers concisely summarized this:
236
Kate: As outdoor educators our function is to provide and mediate experiences,
connections and relationships. The outdoors is the tool we use to cultivate
these interactions. If we do our job well, we create a ripple affect. We
create a sense of wonder that allows kids to experience the wow factor. In
other words, we awe them by nature. Secondly, the tools nature provides
allows for experiential learning; the hands on stuff that has relevance and
is essential in marrying intellect and emotion. Thirdly, out of doors
education provides a more authentic environment, one more conducive to
sharing thought and opinion.
and,
James: Outdoor Educator’s role is multifaceted. Our role is to teach, facilitate,
lead, follow, nurture, protect, challenge etc. Our role is to provide
engaging and meaningful learning experiences that involve adventure.
Learning experiences should be holistic that balance the Cognitive,
Affective, Physical and Spiritual. Our role is to develop constructivist
experiences so students can develop personal meaning in what they
experience and so students have a strong role in the decision making
through independence and trust.
What was very interesting to note was that no teacher spoke of the role of outdoor
education through the eyes of curriculum (though they do later speak to increasing
academic success for their students). In every case they considered it either as a
foundation in which to frame experience, or a methodology to develop personal skills,
and sometimes they considered both as important roles.
3) What do you feel outdoor education provides to its participants?
This question was included to see if teachers had different perceptions for the role
of the outdoors (as asked in the previous question) versus outdoor education, and if they
237
distinguish between the two. However, comments to this question on outdoor education
were very similar to those comments pertaining to the outdoors. Here such words as
‘appreciation for the environment’, ‘personal meaningful experiences’, ‘sense of
community’, and ‘character development’ were often used. As mentioned by one teacher
for this question,
Kate: Our goals are not to produce top notch skiers or rock climbers, rather to
use the emotional and intellectual endeavors while participating in these
activities to promote personal growth in such areas as self confidence,
trust, determination, resilience etc. etc… the qualities that make us good
citizens and human beings.
It was also mentioned that there was an importance for students to perform both as an
individual and as a team, thus once again supporting the notion that, at least in the view
of these teachers, outdoor education is more methodology than content. It was even
commented that this social interconnection extended over to changes in student-teacher
interactions. Again it was commented how students develop such personal growth in
terms of experiential education:
Claire: They [the students] value the opportunity to learn by doing. This seems to
involve some sense of unfolding and developing relationship with tasks
and skills which seems to promote a profound sense of empowerment –
which extends to enthusiasm for learning.
7.4.2 Outdoor Education as Curriculum
Even though the participating teachers of this survey indicated the important, if
not critical, role that the pedagogy of outdoor education has for student development,
they still related to the curricular aspects of their programs and how they enhanced and
238
broadened school learning. In particular, the questions addressed in this section indicate
how teachers framed outdoor education content to be both within and outside the
standard public school curriculum.
4) What key elements or practices do you feel are important in outdoor education?
This question generated many practical elements for the operation of an integrated
outdoor program. The one aspect that bridged across much of the feedback was the
critical importance of safety and risk assessment. Besides this, responses were varied and
diverse. In addition to safety, they included: student training (outdoor skill based),
equipment maintenance, funding, certification training for teacher, community
connections, adventure, ecology, social justice, spirituality, outdoor pursuits, leadership,
independence, teamwork, critical thinking, role playing, interpretation, slowing the pace
down, removal of electronic devices, rigor and accountability, framing and debriefing an
experience, adequate format and time for group and individual reflection, integration of
the experience, relating curriculum to the city classroom, engaging, immersion in natural
environments, and “the attention to self that leads to the development of ability to
articulate personal voice” (Claire). Other particularly interesting comments included:
Claire: I think that what I am trying to cultivate is a capacity for attention – to
self, to others, to literary art forms (written voice) and to the land – and
becoming articulate about the experience of the experience that come with
this kind of attention.
and,
239
Desmond: To have students begin to re-examine their ideas, their approach to
learning, their beliefs about the natural world/environment/society. OE is a
springboard for a student’s awareness on many levels.
5) What do you feel are important areas or topics that a good outdoor education
program should expose students to?
What was very informative about the responses to this question, as well as the
following question, is the degree and nature to which the teachers easily relate their
programs to teaching areas and content topics. Why this is so interesting to note is
because even though this shows these teachers to be very adept at constructing an
understanding of their programs in terms of this content, this is not where they place its
value. As discovered in questions two and three, teachers largely saw the value of
outdoor education and their programs as a pedagogy relating to more global issues such
as personal development. Yet, this question indicates that they did not overlook the idea
of content, but rather did not relate it to the key role of outdoor education.
That being said, teachers generally responded in two distinct ways to this
question. First, about a third saw this to relate to technical skills (or ‘hard skills’) and
gave topics of importance as such things as canoe tripping, map and compass navigation,
survival skills, first aid, risk management, and general outdoor pursuits. The other two
thirds constructed the question along more global topics such as sustainability,
environmental awareness, resource management, and both urban and natural geography.
240
6) What current areas or topics in public schooling are best included in an outdoor
education curriculum?
Like the previous question, it was interesting to note how frequently teachers
would associate their programs to a broad range of curricular topics. Even more
interesting was the difference between their responses here and those for question five;
their responses here, as requested, related current curriculum topics to their programs, yet
in the previous question these are not what they indicated as important areas or topics.
Instead they included the areas of technical skill development and global environmental
issues, indicating that they may perceive their programs are covering more topics than
simply their required public school courses under their specific program umbrella.
That being said, through the teachers surveyed a wide range of school topics were
seen to be inclusive with outdoor education. These primarily included biology,
environmental science, geography, and physical education, but other courses indicated
also included history, language arts, drama, and even math. As one teacher commented,
“it looks like everything!” (Shannon). However, it was also noted that:
Juliet “Outdoor education” that follows the experiential learning model is really
only currently represented in Physical Education Departments in
secondary schools. I believe that a combination of outdoor and
environmental education could be and should be taught in numerous
subjects and at different grade levels.
7) What topics or issues do you feel are required to be taught to new teachers who wish
to teach outdoor education in a public school setting?
Because of the broad scope to such a question, the survey broke this down into
five key areas, as presented here.
241
a) in educational methodology and public school curriculum implementation
This question alone perhaps distinguishes a fundamental difference between
outdoor training and certification for school teachers versus other outdoor facilitators and
guides. The teachers surveyed indicated the importance here of not only the knowledge of
school curriculum but also how to integrate such topics successfully into outdoor
education. Various points such as choosing the relevant curriculum, school board
policies, outdoor learning being integrated with classroom learning and school
curriculum, differentiated instruction, progressive assessment, and inquiry based learning
were mentioned. It was noted that teachers needed to “understand how students learn
(including when out their comfort zone) … and how to assess if students are actually
learning what you think you’ve taught them” (Shannon). The need for more critical
insight into assessment over other forms of outdoor education outside the schools became
apparent.
b) in outdoor programming
Little feedback was given to this question, but a recurring point was the focus on
risk management. In addition to this, other comments included teaching strategies,
equipment and maintenance, trip planning, sustainability and ecological concepts. There
was a slight discrepancy in teachers viewing this question in terms of outdoor education
practice skills, such as risk management, versus more global issues in outdoor education,
such as ecological concepts.
c) in technical skill training (previously called “hard-skills” in outdoor education)
It was interesting to note the language shift with this question as many teachers
began to speak in terms of ‘industry certification’. Many indicated the need for
242
certification in the various technical skills that would be taught to students, and all
stressed that teachers would require first aid and CPR training at minimum. Certification
was noted to be necessary in order to assure that proper safety guidelines were met. The
discussion here quickly indicated that these teachers viewed some essential connections
to current outdoor industry practices, such as first aid, in order to run their integrated
programs, and would indicate at least one area that schools should not separate
themselves from the greater outdoor education field. One teacher did note that many of
these technical skills should be basic transferable skills and “not 100 types of paddle
strokes” (Jack).
d) in personal and group development (interpersonal skills, previously called “soft-
skills” in outdoor education)
The points raised by these teachers reiterated those commonly expressed in the
literature about the various elements of personal development. As such, this question did
not indicate anything more that was particularly noteworthy other than a consensual
understanding of the practices needed to enhance personal development in students. Such
comments included theories and practice from adventure-based counseling, group
formation and dynamics, communication skills, debriefing techniques, using a good set of
curriculum tools in order to develop the interpersonal skills, previous experience in using
the out-of-doors, making the experiences relevant to students, interpersonal skills, models
for decision making, consensus (a concept rarely engaged in traditional classrooms),
facilitation, and conflict mediation skills.
243
e) in philosophical foundations and/or historical traditions
This question proved interesting because it may demonstrate a potential weakness
in many of the teachers’ discussions about teacher training. Here most indicated the need
for “a general knowledge of historical traditions and the progressions from the past to the
present and into the future” (Nikki). However, there were few detailed points to this
question even though many agreed it was needed. This may indicate a possible general
lack of knowledge about the foundation and theory of outdoor and experiential education
in school practice. This might also be a point that, if strengthened, may allow for teachers
of these programs to design a better ‘defense’ for those administrators that challenge the
worth of such programs. Also, it could be argued that knowledge of the past allows one to
avoid making the same mistakes, and thus provide another avenue to develop stronger
programs in themselves.
7.4.3 Formal Teacher Training
As the teachers participating in this survey see outdoor education as an important
aspect of student learning, it was no surprise to discover they were in favor of the idea of
some form of outdoor education teacher training. The insight provided in these next
questions emphasized how they felt the school system could contextualize such training.
This feedback was informative and spoke well to how these teachers perceived the key
importance of outdoor education as pedagogy, while at the same time recognizing a
distinct curriculum for their field.
244
8) Who should be responsible for this training, and why?
The responses to this question were fascinating as they indicated three main
differences of opinions, with no unified ‘voice’ emerging. Discussed about equally,
teachers indicated three governing bodies that should be responsible for this training: (1)
schools and school boards, (2) the outdoor adventure industry, and (3) faculties of
education and universities, while some teachers commented on utilizing more than one.
In some cases teachers indicated that school boards should take the initiative so as to be
aware of the program focus, but that they might not do the training themselves (implying
the outdoor adventure industry might). In a few cases, teachers went on to suggest a need
for partnership between school or college training and that of the outdoor industry,
although there was caution suggested in not blindly following industry standards in
outdoor practices as there is a shift in teaching emphasis in schools (Kate). One teacher
also thought that the “initial training should be the responsibility of the teacher who
should gain valuable experience on their own time while not in charge of students”
(Charlie). The variation in views to this question indicates that many potential
organizations may, and perhaps should, come into play in any discussion about training
teachers in outdoor education for public schooling. It is interesting to note, however,
typically in the outdoor adventure industry training it is uncommon to have a discussion
about needing the framework of universities for training purposes, and rarely, if ever, to
consider public school – even though this institution would have a significant body of
work to contribute. Indeed, it was thought that many outdoor facilitators feel they are
‘counter’ to public schools and oppose their understanding of how such institutions are
run (Kate, Shannon, and Charlie).
245
9) Does the training of a public school teacher in outdoor education need to differ from
the training currently provided to educators in other areas of outdoor education and if
so, then how?
Besides two teachers, one who was uncertain and the other that thought perhaps
not necessarily a difference, all others strongly indicated that a difference in training is
needed for school-based outdoor education. Although it was recognized that “naturally
some areas will have commonalities like safety issues” (Kate), most indicated that a
greater emphasis on curriculum and integration requires a different set of skills to be
instilled in teacher training. Some key points considered were:
Shannon: The ability to understand and use the curriculum must be part of public
school outdoor education programs. Other outdoor educators are able to
do this, but for a public school, outdoor education programs must be
making curricular links and meeting appropriate provincial and school
board standards of education.
and,
Vincent: Given that teachers should be implementing outdoor education on a
massive scale within the community of the school and will maximize the
value of these experiences by integrating them into the school curricula ...
these are not to be “isolated experiences” and “one-shot” deals.
It was nicely summarized that “the focus in outdoor education is education first and
foremost and should have continuity and longevity within the curriculum” (Kate). Thus,
it became apparent that an emphasis on outdoor education in a school setting creates
different considerations than other fields of outdoor education.
246
10) Looking back, what elements do you think should have been added to your own
background and training?
This question did not solicit much response, which was interesting in and of itself
considering the importance of self-reflection embedded in the theory of experiential
education. That being said, some comments included more information on risk
management, trip leadership, more on assessment and evaluation, integrating outdoor
education with other subjects, and a better grounding in the philosophy and theory of
outdoor education. One interesting point was made however:
Charlie: It would have been very helpful at Teacher’s College to have had an
Outdoor Education class where the issues regarding taking students into
the out of doors could have been examined in an education context.
Presently, there is no standard within this education field and as such,
there is a huge variety of teachers with a range of experiences taking
students on outdoor trips to places that they may not be trained to lead.
This comment again indicated the lack of any unified understanding of the scope or
practices of outdoor education and how it relates to public schools. As such, some of the
teachers surveyed viewed teacher training as inconsistent.
11) If you could go back and re-take your formal training, is there anything you would
like to see done differently?
Similar to question ten, there was not found to be any great degree of self-
reflection in the responses to this survey. Of the few comments, it was indicated that it
could be important to look at how to integrate outdoor education into other subject areas,
and to be able to do so with less access to equipment and resources, which is typical for
247
most schools. One interesting point, noted by three teachers, was that they would have
liked to have some formal training, with one reference to the programs offered at
Lakehead and Queens University. This perhaps indicates that a lack of formal structure in
the training of teachers in outdoor education has caused a decrease in reflection of this
issue for these teachers because they have not witnessed a significant shift in practice
because of such a context.
12) What organizations should have a voice in the operation and/or
accreditation/standards of any outdoor education teacher-training program?
This question generated a lot of feedback from the surveyed teachers, and simply
by the volume and detailed nature of their responses this indicated strong opinions to
such a question. First, many thought that partnership between various governing bodies in
outdoor education, such as school boards, university programs, advisory councils, and
industry, to be very positive, and that “they provide insight, knowledge, resources,
funding, curriculum, etc. already that enable programs to occur at the high school level”
(Nikki). Here distinctions were sometimes made of industry being able to provide
training in technical skills while program accreditation was maintained at the school
board or university level. Some considered that the role of industry should be only
advisory-based as to offer guidelines in practice but still acknowledge a difference in
approach and goals between them and public schools, and that faculties of education or
school boards should be responsible for determining and maintaining program standards.
This difference was well articulated in one discussion:
Shannon: If outdoor education is to gain status as a “teachable”, then defined
certification needs and standards would have to go with it. Outdoor
248
education and the outdoor adventure industry are not necessarily striving
for the same goals and clientele. Given the presently stringent (and
sometimes overly so) requirements from school boards around outdoor
activities, it would be a good idea to give legitimacy to outdoor education
and define the standards provincially and adopted by school boards.
At the same time, another mentioned that such partnerships and sharing of teacher
training programs had benefits but also limitations.
Desmond: I think it’s important that organizations either share or can enhance the
goals of public education if they are to provide a service. Therefore skills
training would be a natural but I’m not sure other industries (such as
Outward Bound etc) would have much to offer except in bits and pieces.
A final point raised was the need to include many partners in the development of such
training programs otherwise we would be ‘reinventing the wheel’ in terms that schools
are generally behind in standards established in the outdoor adventure industry.
7.4.4 Alternate Teacher Training
In addition to the survey feedback given about a formalized teacher training
program in outdoor education, many participating teachers perceived other potential
avenues for teacher preparation (and their role of integrating this field with public
schools). The questions presented here articulate the difficulty in teacher preparation, as
the field of outdoor education requires extensive knowledge in both delivery (pedagogy)
and content areas (curriculum).
249
13) Should new-teacher training involve some form of mentorship with existing teaching
professionals?
This question generated unanimous agreement for the positive value of
mentorship as a method for new teachers to gain experience with outdoor education
practices in schools. It was noted that “taking the theory and applying it with somebody
helping to guide your reflection is invaluable” (Shannon) and that “mentorship is critical
for helping future teachers develop those skill and abilities that they either innately
possess or have not developed to their potential” (Desmond). It was also commented that
“people with outdoor experience still need to know how to apply outdoor skills to
educational settings” (Jack), again reinforcing potential differences between outdoor
education in schools and other private sectors, with which a system of mentorship could
potentially assist.
A further question asked participants to consider a good balance between
classroom-based theory and practicum placement, which elicited a mix of responses
ranging from a quarter to a half of teacher training time being spent on a mentored
practicum placement. Although some of these ranges were higher than typical practicum
placements used by universities for teacher certification, there was a subtle
acknowledgement by these numbers that still indicated valued was being placed on the
access to classroom-based theory for these new teachers. However, one particular point
was made that is worth considering:
Desmond: It would be interesting if the two could be combined … theory training
within a practicum. Unfortunately in my experience, most teachers taking
an intern rarely talk about educational theory as applied.
250
Therefore, possibly finding some way of integrating learned theory in a teacher education
program with a practicum could allow for a greater benefit to both; although this issue
would span the larger concept of practicums in general and not be just specific to outdoor
education. It was also mentioned in this context, that perhaps one would not gain the
required experience to teach outdoor education over the period of a practicum, and that
“you need to spend years to acquire experience when you’re talking outdoor pursuits”
(Kate).
14) Are classroom based theory and practicum placement the only two choices for
teacher training, or are there other key elements that should be included?
One major theme arose out of the teachers’ comments to this question: new
teachers must develop more experience than what can be offered in a teacher education
program, even with practicums. Three quarters of the respondents indicated that
experience should be the responsibility of the new teacher prior to undertaking any
outdoor program, while a few mentioned that extended practicum placements or addition
co-op opportunities could be another possibility. “New teachers should be encouraged to
arrive at a faculty of education with a solid background if they know that they wish to
pursue a career in outdoor education” (Shannon). It had been suggested that:
Ben: Probably industry work experience of at least 2 years would be a big
bonus. You just can’t replace experience and it is hard to develop good
hard skills when your trying to teach someone else - seen it done and it
doesn’t really work.
and,
251
Charlie: Personal experience in the outdoors is critical in order for teacher
candidates to gain experience before being in charge of a group of students
where higher levels of risk are present. Such experience would normally
be gained outside of the education field during summer employment
opportunities, personal trips, etc.
Of course, the requirement of extensive experience prior to any teacher training and
certification may greatly hinder enrollment and the continuation of such programs. At the
other end of the spectrum, there may be individuals entering the education profession
who could be drawn to such concepts and practices as outdoor and experiential education
but then be excluded because they lack the compulsory outdoor experience. Requiring
experience as a prerequisite for teacher training would have to be carefully considered in
how it impacts such a program, and potentially create limits to its success of exposure to
new teachers.
15) In what ways could an outdoor teaching-training program contribute to the existing
programs in schools?
The only comment mentioned by several of the teachers was the same that many
existing classroom teachers have made regarding mentoring new student teachers:
someone with a new view or idea can contribute by providing a reflective opportunity to
reconsider an existing method of practice.
Shannon: Any time somebody comes into an existing program with fresh eyes, it
is helpful to the practitioners and the programs. In order to mentor
somebody, one needs to be clear about ones own practice and purpose.
Being able to articulate and discuss this with somebody else strengthens
and clarifies what, how and why one is doing what one is doing. A person
252
looking at an existing program with fresh eyes, very often brings fresh
ideas. It is a win-win situation.
However, there was not any indication that during a practicum placement new teachers
would be able to contribute to additional aspects more specific to outdoor education in
schools than would be the case in other subject areas.
16) When should this teacher-training in outdoor education take place in a teacher’s
career?
What is interesting to note about the feedback to this question is how a shift in
teacher thinking occurred. Most considered that such teacher-training in outdoor
education should be offered as either a pre-service portion of an education degree or as an
upgrade program for existing teachers, and many also indicated that both options should
be available. “It is impossible to say at what point in ones career that one decides that
outdoor education is the area to be in. Some may come to it as a destination and others
may arrive to it later on” (Shannon). What is interesting about this general perspective is
that it partially contradicted most beliefs discussed in question fourteen where many
considered experience beforehand as being important, which would indicate that
individuals were aware of their interest in outdoor education and does not provide the
avenue as stated here for one that might come into the field later in their career. Again,
how previous experience is weighed in value will have a factor on how outdoor education
training programs could be structured.
253
17) What benefits to do you perceive could or should result from a formal teacher
training process that could enhance the preparation of new teachers to the field of
outdoor education?
Although some specific issues were mentioned, such as developing good risk
management practices and being able to grow from shared expertise, overall many
considered a key benefit as being more able to deal with the stress and logistics of
starting new outdoor education programs or taking over old ones.
Charlie: If more teachers graduating from facilities had already received training
in this area, more elementary and secondary students would have
opportunities to have outdoor education included in their school careers.
Many teachers are reluctant to take students on field trips as they do not
feel they have the proper training and experience to do so in a safe and
meaningful way.
7.4.5 Formal Relation of Outdoor Education in Schools
As seen in the previous questions, the participating teachers gave detailed
feedback on their perceptions of outdoor education, how their field (and specific
program) operates in schools, and how the value of teacher training programs could be
utilized. Further questions, as detailed below, examined how a more formalized
relationship between outdoor education and public schools might be envisioned. From
this discussion, the value of understanding how outdoor education at times plays out as
pedagogy or curriculum is seen to continue to be an important consideration.
254
18) In places like Australia, outdoor education is sanctioned by the government as a
“teachable”. What are your thoughts, concerns, or support if such a direction was taken
in Canada?
Most of the teachers surveyed indicated that they thought such an approach would
be a ‘good idea’ but only a few of these expressed any strong feelings one way or the
other. This might indicate that either they never thought to frame outdoor education in
such a way as ‘teachable’ or in its actual value as curriculum, but such a distinction could
not be made with the given feedback. It was mentioned that since outdoor education has
specific skills that it should become a specialized area, but other comments also indicated
that in creating it as a teachable allowances would have to be made for those already in
the field that did not have formal outdoor education training. An interesting point was
made that happened to speak to similar occurrences in the Australian system where
outdoor education as a teachable naturally generates support for such programs from
higher up administrative levels.
Charlie: More government support would make outdoor education on equal terms
as other areas of the curriculum. It is often ignored because it doesn’t
appear in curriculum guidelines or is not a teachable at Teacher’s college.
More opportunities would encourage healthier lifestyles and more
environmental awareness when presently the environment is the “in
thing”.
19) Is there a need to create or push for the idea that outdoor education in schools
should be a recognized teaching specialty?
As with the previous question, the teachers surveyed tended to agree that there
could be benefits to recognizing outdoor education as a specialty, but that this did not
255
generate many strong views. However, one teacher did feel that we needed to move away
from ideas of specialization because this has hindered acceptance of outdoor education in
schools where “turf and content continues to be so important” (James). It was also
mentioned by another teacher that such a teaching specialty could include but still be
distinct from environmental education.
Shannon: Maybe this should be done in conjunction with the push for
Environmental Education. I personally would favour the title of Outdoor
and Environmental Education so that neither component is lost.
Lastly, the value for recognizing outdoor education as a teaching specialty was
considered politically in terms of its acceptance in schools by other teachers and
administrators.
Charlie: I believe that outdoor education should become a recognized teaching
specialty. Being a teacher who teaches this field, other teachers often
don’t support the value of this as a teachable on its own and often
comment how it is an elective or not very valuable for a student’s
academics. Post secondary institutions should also accept the value of
such credits appearing on student’s transcripts and not view them as
“wasted” credits of little value.
20) How do you feel about the idea of outdoor education becoming a curriculum
specialty, as suggested in the previous question, generating “mandatory” outdoor
education training for new teacher-candidates? What might be the benefits or drawbacks
of such an approach?
This question was designed to draw possible comparisons between teachers and
the current profession of outdoor facilitators who typically develop an opposed stance to
256
certification as not recognizing previous experience. What was interesting was, that for
the most part, the teachers surveyed here thought that such a situation could potentially
be a good thing in terms of providing consistency among educators in this field. It was
also mentioned that “it would certainly attract a different kind of teacher and would
provide much different experiences for students” (Desmond). This difference in how
teachers viewed this question from other outdoor facilitators may be a result of how the
question was framed; for teachers their profession centers on certifications over
qualifications more so than does the outdoor adventure industry. However, some
drawbacks were recognized when teachers spoke of possible difficulties of providing
specific training for the varied nature of existing programs, and that mandatory training
would not mean one was necessarily effective in outdoor education. It was also noted that
a possible relation between a school board having outdoor curriculum and required
training may exist.
Shannon: I would be in favour of all teacher-candidates having training in and for
the outdoors. Most teachers that we see at our centre believe that teaching
outdoors is out of their comfort zone. If outdoor education were a
secondary course, then the mandatory training would necessarily follow.
21) Do you feel there are any drawbacks to teacher-training in this field, and if so, what
are the particular concerns you have to such an approach?
This was felt to be an important question because it caused the teachers surveyed
to critically think about outdoor education in a limiting way. The feedback was diverse
and although much can be considered, there was certainly no unifying theme to the
comments. Thus, we might consider that drawbacks may exist but perhaps nothing
obviously critical that could limit such a program. There were comments on such
257
practical things as the cost of certification and membership fees in outdoor practice being
difficult to pay for by new teachers, creating an increase in liability for the teacher, and
even one respondent who felt there was too much emphasis on getting certificates in the
first place. In addition, it was thought that “the training may have to be too general in
order to benefit most. Programs at different schools can be so different” (Ben). Of course,
a similar argument could be offered for any subject area: the different approaches to
science curriculum in schools do not hinder all teacher education programs from having a
general science methods course. Also, the issue of experience not being gained in a single
semester of practicum placement resurfaced, where it was commented that teachers
should only use this teacher training to enhance their own experience and knowledge.
Lastly, it was also discussed by one teacher that the pre-service teachers taking this
program might have difficulty in utilizing such outdoor theories and practice.
Desmond: Potentially participants could come out of a program and not be able to
realize [enact] what they envisioned while in it. We have had some pre-
service teachers who do a short practicum with us and then find it very
difficult to make it through their full semester practicum that is completely
classroom based (it seems like drudgery in comparison).
Of course, one might not consider exposing student teachers to a different practice to be a
drawback of that particular practice simply because these students do not immediately
find an avenue of execution for such a teaching approach.
258
22) Are there any other key issues that you feel would be important for teacher-training
in outdoor education that has not been discussed in the above questions?
This opened-ended question was important as it had the potential to draw out
other dialogues from teachers on the issue of outdoor education in schools that may have
been framed in their minds from the previous questions that they had yet to articulate. A
few interesting points did arise from this, and included such issues as:
• developing an annual forum for each school board to allow teachers to share ideas
and resources
• generating advocacy or ‘general public’ education on what outdoor education is
and why it is important since “simply having a large number of enthusiastic and
well trained teachers of OE may not be enough for it to become something
supported by tax payers” (Shannon)
• the difficult politics and logistics of getting field trips approved by administration,
having non-outdoor education teachers in OE placements to examine reflection
and learning
• concern with possible adventure tourism involvement since “They [adventure
tourism] don’t have the educational component, there’s a big difference between
teaching and guiding” (Kate)
• possible difficulties in teachers maintaining a large degree of required
certifications to run such programs (which typically all need to be renewed every
few years)
Further consideration was noted to be necessary when taking into account a more global
importance of outdoor education to the profession of public school teaching:
259
James: I have to say that most colleges of education across Canada do not value
Experiential and Outdoor education. They simply continue to model
lecture, essay, test formats and are fearful of scrutiny if they change. Many
education students are so used to this style of learning that they feel it is
too much work to learn using inquiry or experiential methodologies. We
need to provide engaging experiences in our communities that challenge
students to critically think about how they will challenge their students in
the years to come.
260
7.5 Trends in Teacher Approach and Critical Issues
The survey data collected from these teachers operating integrated outdoor
programs at their schools provides further insight into issues regarding how outdoor
education plays out within the public school system. Explicit feedback provided a context
for the possible need and roles that teacher training in the area of outdoor education
would have for a school teacher and how that may differ from other outdoor industry
fields. Implicit feedback provided a framework for understanding how these school
teachers viewed the relation of outdoor education as pedagogy and/or curriculum,
demonstrating a similar trend in approach with other integrated outdoor programs.
Teachers viewed the success of their programs as contributing to many aspects of
a student’s school experience. The focus of their work reinforcing academics articulated a
belief that such outdoor education programs provide students with more than simply a
wilderness experience, and that significant growth in school-based performance abilities
was possible to achieve in such a setting. This coincided with statements that
demonstrated the methodological success of their programs being founded in experiential
or ‘hands-on’ learning opportunities. “[The program’s] hands-on experiential approach
makes for powerful, lasting and potentially transformative learning” (Vincent) was
indicative of many of the teacher’s responses. Lastly, most viewed the success of their
programs as providing more than just academics, and the importance of developing
personal growth in their students was apparent.
Kate: We really feel that the program contributes to the growth of each of the
kids holistically and that they have acquired life skills that are transferable
in to their adult lives. It’s most often that students don’t really understand
this growth and connection to the program until later in their life.
261
It was interesting to note how often these teachers spoke of personal growth considering
the context of most high schools being largely academic. This shift to a holistic
understanding of student performance allows outdoor integrated programs to bring
something greater to the traditional and established high school system, yet at the same
time it may provide a barrier for implementation if such holistic learning and growth is
not appreciated by such a school system.
Aligned with the notion of success for their programs, teachers surveyed here
defined the role for their programs in school systems as largely providing (1) an
experiential framework for learning and (2) the development of personal skills (and how
this can extend beyond the context of applied academics). With such a focus on the roles
for these programs it was noted that “the students from years previous come back and
acknowledge the value of the course and how much better off they are than many of their
peers in college or in the workplace” (Nikki). This statement reflects the possibility that
such a learning environment may provide an advantage for students to be able to
accomplish later in life that may not be met within the traditional classroom, and as such
that academic performance can not be distilled down into quantized units of testing. It
was noted that this role for outdoor education in schools in being able “to bring education
to life by experiencing it first hand and not just talking about it removed in a classroom”
(Charlie) indicates that student performance is intimately linked to their learning
environment, and that a holistic approach needs to be considered.
A key point that did arise from the teachers’ feedback was how they viewed
outdoor education as an approach to teaching, that is to say a pedagogy, rather than a
specific and defined curriculum with its own set of outcomes.
262
Vincent: [Outdoor Education is] a teaching methodology rather than subject
content. A methodology that addresses education for environment,
character (both the development of personal traits & social skills),
wellbeing (spiritual as well as physical) and curriculum (all subject areas).
Here, the emphasis on personal growth and the teaching approach was considered
paramount for such programs by these teachers. Such a view can be seen to be indicative
of many integrated outdoor programs and reinforces the notion that those operating such
programs do indeed have this tacit understanding of outdoor education as method.
However, this is not to suggest that these teachers did not see the potential for
outdoor education to serve as curriculum, but rather that this is not where they held its
importance. Throughout all the surveys collected for this study, teachers did speak in
terms of curriculum outcomes and linkages to their programs; the very nature of being
able to provide an integrated program that utilizes outdoor education as a thematic
learning style.
Kate: What truly makes it an educational experience is that the activities are not
isolated, but integrated and experiential. Rock climbing is a great time to
teach rock formation, ski touring can incorporate snow metamorphisms,
crafting a cedar root basket combines ethno botany, fine arts and resource
management etc… , all while integrating language arts skills in journals
and fine arts skills in art work and crafts.
Here we can start to see how these teachers transform the educational medium of outdoor
education in order to provide a context for existing school-based curriculum, while
utilizing experiential education in order to provide retention and transference of such
learned moments.
263
Yet, by using outdoor education in such a thematic way, the teachers also
indicated that additional core topics to their programs did develop that were outside the
required course outcomes that they modeled their programs to cover. These were able to
be defined by two broad categories: specific technical skills, such as canoeing strokes
necessary for a particular expedition; and more global environmental issues and
awareness, such as societal responsibility for sustainability. However, again the emphasis
of outdoor education as method over content became clear in many conversations. For
example, one teacher articulated this argument as:
Claire: I think the experiential element is the most important criteria for me, and
actually not high skills/high adrenalin which tends in some ways to
become a focus of expertise that doesn’t really support awareness of self
in environment. To me skills are certainly important but “in the service of”
something further.
From this discussion on additional topics being covered, one critical aspect of this
relation of outdoor education as either pedagogy or curriculum as noted by one teacher is
highlighted here.
James: If we want to change the structure of secondary education to more
integration and meaningful experiential learning then OE will have to
change as well. If it is recreational clubs, then the canoe trips and
backpacking trips are wonderful. However, Integrated Programs go deeper
into the delivery of curriculum in an engaging way. It is not solely about
the memorization of content and writing of tests.
What is interesting about this comment is the teacher’s perception of how outdoor
education as content, in terms of recreational skills, would limit the value of outdoor
education, which he felt had more to offer by integrating with existing curriculum. Such
264
comments could be seen as support for the need to distinguish the how of outdoor
education practice in public schools.
Of course, such an argument for the relation of outdoor education in public
schools brings into question its relation to environmental education also. Concepts
pertaining to environmental issues and awareness were certainly present within the
teacher’s surveys, although none significantly discussed the value or role that their
programs had for students. Instead, many teachers viewed the content of environmental
education as an important topic, but by doing so naturally distinguished it from outdoor
education, which they thought of as process.
Juliet: [Outdoor education is] the process of framing and contextualizing
experiences in the outdoors in a way that allows participants to transfer
lessons learned through outdoor experiences to other areas of life. [This is]
different from environmental education which encourages an affective
connection to nature, an understanding of natural systems and a change in
environmental habits.
This could be argued to be an important point to consider with respect to the potential
interplay between outdoor and environmental education. One might consider outdoor
education as pedagogy that uses the content of environmental education, while
environmental education is a curriculum that may (or may not) use outdoor education as a
process. Once again we see a need to distinguish the role that outdoor education plays in
public schooling.
From these discussions detailing the success and roles of each integrated outdoor
program, the issue of teacher training arose many times even outside the context of
specific questions. It could be argued that the teachers surveyed collectively saw teacher
265
training to be imperative for the continued success of all areas of outdoor education
programs in public schools, not just their own realm of integrated outdoor programs.
“Given the potential for the widespread use of OEE [outdoor experiential education],
there must now be formal training through the Faculties of Education” (Vincent). What
was even clearer from their feedback was the idea that such teacher training should be
accomplished by the use of several different agencies. Here, three key agencies were seen
as important for developing a solid teacher training program in outdoor education: (1) the
school board or provincial department of education, (2) university faculties of education,
and (3) outdoor adventure industry. Many comments indicated a relation suggesting that
the department of education or school board should serve as an advisory role in
establishing such training even if they did not administer it themselves, as they should be
involved at this stage of global outcomes to such programs and how they fit within their
own initiatives. University designed programs were seen as important for two reasons:
(1) they provide solid avenues for extensive teacher training, and (2) by ‘legitimizing’ the
value of outdoor education in schools since “it is often ignored because it doesn’t appear
in curriculum guidelines or is not a teachable at Teacher’s college” (Charlie). The
synergy between school boards and the universities, and the classroom teacher’s role
were well articulated by the following comment:
James: We are all responsible for progressive Experiential Education training. K-
12 Education School Divisions need to support innovative educational
programs that connect students with the community. K-12 teachers that
are progressive need to take more interns so that they can have the
experiences necessary. University colleges of education must develop
more courses that combine theory and practice. Education professors need
to model experiential education, not just talk about it.
266
Though the roles of school boards and universities were generally uniformly
accepted by the teachers surveyed, the exact role of the outdoor adventure and tourism
industry was not as conclusive, and a few concerns were raised about considering such a
partnership. It was acknowledged by most of the surveyed teachers that the outdoor
industry had significant value in terms of certifications and training for risk management
and safety (including first aid and CPR training), and by providing teachers with the
necessary technical skills for the various types of expeditions they would undertake with
their students. However, a few teachers were concerned that outdoor adventure and
tourism companies do not specialize in curriculum outcomes and integration theory to the
degree that is necessary for the operation of such school-based programs. One teacher
offered the following when describing the role of industry based companies:
Kate: I think that we have to be careful about making sure there is an educator in
outdoor education and that outdoor programs are not simply sporadic
blocks of time where you take kids out of the classroom, engage them in
these wonderful opportunities and activities without following through
with long term goals. What kids learn in their outdoor experiences must
be transferable. If it fails to be so, then the experience remains nothing
more than your typical PE class.
Just as it became apparent that teachers perceived a different focus and set of
skills needed for their programs than is present in the outdoor adventure industry, their
apparent acceptance of training certification was also markedly different. Here many
teachers’ views can be summarized as that “there have been some greatly watered down
programs done called OE in the past. A formalized program should raise the standards
for OE programmes” (Shannon). It could be argued that perhaps since teachers are in an
267
institutional environment that promotes certification standards more so than the average
outdoor education program or facility that there could be a reduced opposition to
implementing certification as seen within the recreation sector.
However, this is not to suggest that these teachers saw teacher certification as the
sole means of teacher preparation for outdoor education. Quite the opposite, many
indicated a similar view as is present in the outdoor industry that a certain degree of
experience must also be present.
Charlie: The experience and confidence required by teachers can not be acquired
in a single semester. They must gain this experience on their own and
then use the teacher-training to enhance what they have already learned to
enrich their education background that will encourage them to include
outdoor education in their day to day teaching.
It was often felt that the amount of experience required was greater than what could be
achieved through a typical practicum mentorship provided by university degree training.
Though this form of mentorship was also considered invaluable by all teachers surveyed,
it was acknowledged that more needed to be done in order to develop the proper amount
of experience required to be responsible for students in the wilderness. This prior
experience was frequently considered in terms of risk management and safety over other
details such as group dynamics and curriculum integration. The practicum experience
itself would then be a time to link together a teacher’s wilderness experience with
teaching outdoor education in the public school setting. “Alternating placements with
reflection and learning would provide a reason for new teachers to share what they
experience and to set goals for their own learning” (Jack).
268
One potential contradictory aspect of this teacher feedback relating to prior
experience surfaced once the discussion shifted to the consideration of when a teacher
should receive such training as to implement such integrated outdoor programs. Here it
would appear that most teachers wanted ‘the best of both worlds’ in terms of offering this
training to pre-service teachers and also to existing practicing teachers.
Shannon: The indisputable enrichment of learning that takes place in the outdoors
should be an option for all teachers. I see many teachers who don’t think
of it as an option because they haven’t had any exposure to teaching in the
outdoors. There are others who are afraid of what may happen outdoors,
either because they have personal fears or again, no training.
The contradiction arises when comparing this view that training in outdoor education
should be available to all teachers (as a way to promote this field of education) with the
previously stated view that enrollment restrictions due to experience should be
established present practical incompatibilities. Thus, even though it was acknowledged
that “many full time teachers would like to include the outdoors in their teaching but
opportunities to receive adequate training are not readily available” (Charlie), the
availability of such programs may not be enough if a prerequisite of extensive pre-
teaching experience is necessary. In addition, by having this prior experience it could be
argued that teachers would no longer have the personal fears that are stated as limiting
such a field of education. Arguably, one key point must be considered when dealing with
certification versus experience: it has to start somewhere. Perhaps for many teachers, a
certification in outdoor and experiential education may provide the starting block to
encourage gaining further experience in such a field as to eventually lead such integrated
programs.
269
7.6 Summary of General Findings
The primary research collected and analyzed for this thesis correlated with the
existing literature, particularly pertaining to the inclusion of outdoor education to the
realm of public schooling (Ives & Obenchain, 2006; Coleman, 1995; Chapman, McPhee
& Proudman, 1992). Similarities existed with other integrated programs, examined in
additional studies (Comishin, et al, 2004; Horwood, 2002a; Russell & Burton, 2000),
which critically placed the role of outdoor education as pedagogy, even if not explicitly
stated as such. The role of outdoor education as a holistic approach for the development
of personal and group skills became apparent, and differs in emphasis from one that
might view outdoor education under a similar lens as a content-based environmental
education program (that may or may not utilize experiential education practices in student
development). This may also suggest a fundamental difference between pubic school
programs and that of the outdoor industry that relies on their profession simultaneously as
both method and content. Where this primary research benefits such an argument is that it
critically examines where public school teachers place their emphasis for such an
approach. Although outdoor curricular outcomes can be present in even integrated
outdoor programs, through the use of specialty courses such as co-op or interdisciplinary
studies, the lack of importance or reflection placed on this throughout the teachers’
discussion in these surveys provides a solid indication of how these teachers place
outdoor content beneath that of outdoor practice. As such, any possible implementation
of a teacher training program in outdoor education may want to situate itself in terms of
the balancing of outdoor education as pedagogy and curriculum.
270
Chapter 8 – Implementation Design for Outdoor Education in Schools
8.1 Defining the Role of Outdoor Education in Schools
In the discussions of the previous chapters, I have proposed that outdoor
education sometimes can be considered as pedagogy while in other instances it can be
seen as curriculum within the context of public schools. Since each of these views of
outdoor education brings a different set of conditions and limitations, I suggest that, at
times, the roles of outdoor education as either pedagogy or curriculum work as binary
opposites in the school system, where one view has the potential to weaken the other. For
example, if a teacher attempts to design an outdoor education program as a delivery
method for experiential education, critics may argue that such a program lacks any real
content thereby dismissing the role of outdoor education in schools. In this case, the
critics were using the argument for the value of outdoor education as curriculum as a
position to weaken the stance of outdoor education as pedagogy.
There was no evidence in curriculum guidelines or from providers that outdoor education was centrally located within the curriculum; rather it was currently a form of ‘curricular enhancement’. It seemed that outdoor learning could be located both within and outside the curriculum, with the same arguments being deployed to associate it as to distance it, laying the outdoor sector open to claims that providers take a utilitarian approach to the use of such justifications. (Nicol, et al, 2007: 9)
Here, these authors (writing in the context of Scotland, UK) have identified that outdoor
education can operate ‘within and outside the curriculum’ by also being a form of
curricular enhancement. As demonstrated in previous chapters of this thesis, this
‘curricular enhancement’ often takes the form of personal development or an emphasis as
pedagogy. It can be seen from this quote that other researchers have identified a way in
271
which the exact use of outdoor education in schools has a potential to weaken its stance,
and I would argue that this directly relates to the discussion of how outdoor education can
be seen as either content or method. As demonstrated from the work of outdoor education
in the context of curricula-based programming present in Australian and New Zealand
schools, and the integrated outdoor programming present in Canadian schools, it can be
argued that these two systems may frequently blend with each other but that they are
capable of providing different experiences. Because of the ways in which the dynamic of
outdoor education may play out within public schools, I would suggest that it can be of
significant value for teachers to become educated and versed in the roles that outdoor
education has to offer. If one is able to more easily identify these roles then perhaps a
major learning bind, which potentially limits the exposure and growth of such programs
in schools, may be overcome.
There have been many reasons and arguments as to why we should educate using
the outdoors. Peter Higgins (1997) has suggested many, including: education through
direct experience, holism, health, play & adventure, personal & social development,
environmental connection & sustainability, consequential education, sense of place, rites
of passage, citizenship & taking responsibility, different potentials for different learners,
and actual reality versus virtual, many of which have already been addressed in this
thesis. What this thesis also suggests is that we must take these values and understand
them in the context of outdoor education as curriculum and/or pedagogy. Based on this, I
will now discuss theories and frameworks that have been used for the teaching of outdoor
education in schools and also, more importantly, in the teacher training programs for
outdoor education. In doing so, I will attempt to situate the nature of outdoor education as
272
curriculum and/or pedagogy in terms of its importance for understanding in teacher
training as a means to avoid such potential learning binds as discussed above. From this, I
will then bring the argument back to the value in understanding the exact context of how
outdoor education can be, and is, implemented in schools. What I will not do, however, is
propose an exact content or delivery for such teacher training programs, but rather
demonstrate how the articulation of the role of outdoor education should play in such
programs.
8.1.1 Dimensions of Outdoor Learning
In order to better understand the role of outdoor education in schools, we will first
explore how we can contextualize outdoor learning for students. That is to say, whether
outdoor education is used in curricula-based or integrated programming, are there key
elements that such programs can emphasize for schools (in addition to the growth in
inter- and intrapersonal development as discussed early on in this thesis)? This portion of
the discussion has intentionally been left until later in this thesis so as to enable
connections to be made to the notion of outdoor education operating as either curriculum
or pedagogy.
It has been suggested that outdoor education embodies three core areas:
Within the wide range of options available to the Outdoor Educator three themes flow, environmental, residential and adventure activities. Within each of these themes there is a progression of experiences and an increasing empowerment of individuals to undertake their own ventures. (Loynes, Michie & Smith, 1997: 15)
For how this quote relates to our discussion, we would now need to consider how we are
framing such themes. For example, we could possibly see the environmental theme as
273
content while perhaps viewing adventure activities as a learning method, and by doing so
this could suggest other considerations that must be taken into account in terms of how
the public school system may utilize such themes. However, before this discussion on
specifics is taken up (as it will be in the next section), it can be of value to explore more
global concepts for the benefits of outdoor education central to schools and public
education.
Beyond the scope of outdoor education itself, it has been suggested that this form
of education can center on ‘holism’ for the individual. “This is the notion that Outdoor
Education can generate opportunities for integrated learning experiences which may
incorporate aspects of intellectual, physical, emotional, aesthetic and spiritual
development” (Higgins, 1997: 11). Here we can see emphasis on the whole learner, rather
than just an ‘empty vessel’ analogy for content assimilation and regurgitation. What is
also important to realize is that such a view sees these as integrated within one another,
thus making the sum of the learning greater than the individual parts. For example;
There is a tendency to consider education as taking place in a purely intellectual domain. The view expressed above includes ‘physical’ and it is important to realise that this is intended as a form of education and not simply as exercise. Learning is likely to be more effective if it uses physical sensations as well as intellectual, and there are of course many things which must be learnt primarily physically. We know the world best when we encounter it through as many of our senses as possible. (Higgins, 1997: 11)
From this idea of the development of the whole learning as being something
greater than an intellectual exercise, Higgins later explored what I would call a key
dimension to outdoor education: complexity. Here it has been suggested that there is
something more than just the value in the experiential aspect of outdoor education. By the
very nature of outdoor education as a socially constructed activity which permits personal
274
investment to produce activity Higgins suggests that this generates a complexity in the
situation that is not present in more traditional forms of education. More importantly, he
suggested that such complexity actually has benefit rather than disadvantage for the
learner.
In modern education the conventional approach is to make efforts to simplify the learning process. This is done through the application of appropriate methods to a defined and increasingly prescriptive curriculum which is in itself compartmentalised into subjects with well defined boundaries. However, most human interactions are complex. Understanding this world and living and working within it requires awareness of relationships, connections and consequences. Whilst there may be ways in which the school curriculum might be changed to encourage learning and understanding of this type, such changes seem unlikely. Direct experience outdoors is proposed as one way of achieving these learning outcomes. (Higgins, 2001: 99)
This notion of complexity also aligns nicely with the idea of generating a solid
experience base from which to enhance knowledge (Coleman, 1995), as described in
Chapter Four of this thesis. In both cases we can also see how engaging in the complexity
of a social construct of learning can enhance higher order cognitive functions.
Thinking about and dealing with complex issues requires key skills which must include critical analysis, integrated thinking, problem solving and personal and social skills and the approach and ethos of the school is central to this process. If the subjects are taught without these dimensions they will not be valued. (Higgins, 2001: 101)
Here it is seen that students need to navigate a lived experience of education; they can not
simply rely on becoming passive observers as a teacher lectures about what is deemed
important knowledge. By engaging in complex and undefined situations, students rely
more on reflective action, as also suggested by Schön (1987), in order to overcome a
learning bind. From this idea of complexity, Higgins argued that outdoor education plays
a critical function for the learner: “I would argue that outdoor education has an important
275
role in extending the student perspective out from simplicity towards encounters with
complexity” (Higgins, 2001: 101). Hence, by placing value on outdoor education,
through it’s connectivity to ideas of complexity, it is suggestive to also enhance critical
thinking skills.
Through ‘encounters with complexity’, outdoor education can be further
expanded to include many dimensions or facets that can be brought to the public school
system. These dimensions of outdoor education were nicely articulated by Higgins when
he later examined the roles that outdoor education has to play, drawing from ideas by
Kurt Hahn for training for and through the sea (Hahn, 1947).
Outdoor education might be considered as education ‘in’ (outdoor activities), ‘through’ (personal and social education, therapy, rehabilitation, management development), ‘about’ (environmental education) and ‘for’ (sustainability) the natural heritage. (Higgins, 2008)
Very important to this thesis is that such notions of outdoor education as education in,
through, about, and for the natural heritage help to distinguish the argument for outdoor
education as either pedagogy or curriculum. If we consider outdoor education as
education ‘in’ the natural heritage than this simply becomes the base framework for the
physical environment, as discussed in Chapter Two of this thesis, as a setting used for
adventure and environmental education, as well as outdoor recreation and leisure
pursuits. If outdoor education is considered as education ‘through’ the natural heritage,
then I believe this lends well to the idea of outdoor education as pedagogy, using
experiential education as its framework. Now, if it is thought of as education ‘about’ the
natural heritage, then this speaks directly to outdoor education as curriculum, particularly
focused as the theme of environmental education. Finally, we can consider Higgins’ view
of outdoor education as education ‘for’ the natural heritage. Here I would argue that this
276
view represents Freire’s idea of praxis (1970), reflection and action upon the world in
order to transform it, and as such I would suggest that education ‘for’ the natural heritage
becomes meta to the ‘through’ and ‘about’ the natural heritage (as Higgins refers to the
‘for’ as sustainability, this becomes the transformative result of the action for outdoor
education).
What differs in this discussion of outdoor education, once it is taken into the
realm of public schooling, is that the ‘in, through, about and for’ can become isolated and
selective in application by surrogate use of the existing school structure and curriculum.
That is to say, schools have the ability to take outdoor education as piecemeal; using
elements that it likes while disengaging from others for which it can rely on its existing
system. I do not at all suggest that this is necessarily a good thing, but rather that its
presence allows for rifts to form that can discredit such roles in school learning for
outdoor education. From such a consideration of outdoor education as in, through, about
and for the natural heritage, it is necessary to reflect on the needs of outdoor education as
both pedagogy and curriculum as a way of generating greater awareness of the social
condition and experiences of outdoor education in public schools. This reflection will
better allow us to understand the limitations, expectations, and potential growth that this
field can offer the classroom environment. “If experiential outdoor learning provides a
significant means of addressing complexity and environmental sustainability, it is
important that the approach becomes more widespread and integrated with mainstream
education” (Higgins, 2008).
277
8.1.2 Integration into Existing Public School Structure
Outdoor Education has often been considered to be an approach to education which can permeate throughout virtually any curricular subject area. In addition it is used to satisfy the aims of those wishing to encourage outdoor recreation, environmental awareness and personal and social development: a role as broad as any subject area within the field of human experience. It should be no surprise then that this has often left Outdoor Educators with a feeling of some bewilderment and of being everywhere but nowhere. (Higgins & Loynes, 1997: 6)
From the above quote, one can understand a key difficulty for the integration of
outdoor education into existing public schools; the sheer breadth and complexity that
outdoor education encompasses. Therefore, refinement of the role and scope of outdoor
education may prove crucial for it to find a lasting place in schools, and I would propose
that understanding outdoor education as curriculum or pedagogy is an important step.
Though not cleanly defined in this manner as curriculum or pedagogy, recent studies on
outdoor education in schools have identified this very issue. A study by Nicol et al,
(2006) examining outdoor education providers offering their programs to schools came to
the conclusion that there was no evidence to suggest that outdoor learning was centrally
located within the curriculum but rather a form of curriculum enhancement. More
importantly, their study indicated a tendency for outdoor education providers to view
their programs as different from, and potentially incompatible with, public school
programs.
Providers seem to define the special character of outdoor learning not as complimentary to school education but as distinct from it, raising the issue of ‘to what extent does the outdoor experience provide added value over and above classroom-based learning?’. The same arguments appear to be deployed to associate outdoor learning with the curriculum as to distance it. (Nicol, et al, 2006: 4)
278
As the issue of incompatibility of outdoor education with public schools has already been
discussed in great detail within this thesis, what is important to draw from this quote is
the potential detriment such a framing of outdoor education may have in distancing it
from public school education. At this point I would like to suggest one possibility for
such a stance for many outdoor education providers. If we were to consider this argument
under a model I type situation, as proposed by Schön, then we could consider providers
utilizing outdoor curriculum in a defensive manner as a means to ‘strengthen’ their
position against other forms of education. This approach obviously hinders integration of
outdoor education by reserving a special realm of ‘outdoor knowledge’ exclusive to their
trade and detached from schools. Therefore, the articulation of outdoor education as
pedagogy may indeed assist to move to a model II type interaction in order to avoid this
learning bind. Indirectly, this has been suggested by this study.
When addressing the question ‘can outdoor learning contribute to and enhance the future 3-18 curriculum in Scotland?’ it is clear from these data that the answer is ‘yes’ with the caveat that many could easily refer to classroom learning. These data provide a lot of evidence that outdoor learning is currently a form of ‘curricular enhancement’. (Nicol, et al, 2006: 16)
A model II arrangement that may be considered here is in how these various educators
define their own roles. “Taking the issue of the lack of confidence to educate outdoors
amongst school-teachers and the lack of curricular knowledge and expertise amongst
some outdoor education providers in this study there seems to be considerable potential
for a ‘meeting of minds’ and sharing of expertise” (Nicol, et al, 2006: 48). However,
regardless of whether or not public schools utilize external outdoor education providers,
this argument of defining the role of outdoor education for, and within, schools remains
important for any potential growth in this field.
279
This understanding of the role of outdoor education in schools is confounded by
not having a clear perception of outdoor education as either pedagogy or curriculum.
From this duality, other particular issues arise that can interfere with the integration into
public schools, often doing so without an apparent understanding of exactly how outdoor
education can play out in the schools. For example;
Despite increasing awareness of the positive impacts, there is some evidence to suggest that opportunities for EOtC [education outside the classroom] have declined in recent years. The decline has been attributed to teachers’ concern about health and safety issues, their lack of confidence in teaching outdoors, and school and university curriculum requirements limiting opportunities for outdoor learning. Barriers to curriculum integration have also included an increased perception that a high degree of risk is attached to EOtC, exacerbated by issues of bureaucracy, funding, timing and resources. Finally, competing curriculum pressures limiting follow-up work and a lack of connection to wider learning is reported to limit the effectiveness of current provision. (Kendall, et al, 2006: 2)
Here it is important to distinguish how certain limitations are contextualized as either
curriculum or pedagogy in order to gain a better understanding of how to deal with them.
Issues of curriculum pressures, lack of connection to wider learning, and school and
university curriculum requirements may not be as serious an impact if outdoor education
was considered or utilized in a school as a pedagogy for integrated programming.
Likewise, perhaps the teachers’ concern in their lack of confidence, safety issues, and risk
assessment could be understood and addressed in terms of curriculum delivery (more so
in this example as their required understanding of outdoor education as a field of
knowledge rather than just activity). Yet, later work examining the role of outdoor
education in schools still indicated that “there is increased evidence and both public and
political conviction that ‘education outdoors’ can provide important learning experiences
that enable young people to learn in, through and about the natural heritage through first-
280
hand experience” (Nicol, et al, 2007: 1). Therefore, difficulties in integration of outdoor
education in public schools should not preclude the development of such programs, but
rather help reinforce the need to understand how outdoor education is possibly being used
as either content or method.
In order to consider how such outdoor programs would be more successfully
integrated into our school system, it is also important to consider the student’s view of
such experiences.
What young people value in outdoor experiences depends on the way three dimensions interact: the context/place, the activity itself and the social aspect. Most young people valued outdoor experiences that were less formal (e.g. mediated by family members, clubs and with friends) and some outdoor learning delivered through ‘centres’ and awards schemes. These less formal experiences were more commonly associated with providing more sustained, purposeful learning, tailored to their own interests and needs… The kinds of approaches to learning which young people found valuable and worthwhile included learning in, for and about natural contexts, self-directed approaches, teamwork, intergenerational learning, peer learning, the use of smaller groups, and approaches that allowed for greater choice about where they go while on trips and what they might do while outside. (Nicol, et al, 2007: 5)
In the context of our discussion, this quote might suggest that students may value outdoor
education more in terms of integrated-programming rather than curricula-based
programming. Here, students may find less connection to a school-based outdoors
program simply because it may have a greater focus as curriculum rather than pedagogy.
But that being said, this would not invalidate the role of curriculum because whether or
not it is outdoor education based or another subject area, such as science, the existence of
curriculum would still be present; this only brings into question how students view the
value of outdoor education as pedagogy. From this, it is suggestive that such a role for
281
outdoor education as curriculum would be placed second in value after pedagogy for
students, but that it would be present nonetheless.
Simply ‘being outdoors’ is not sufficient for young people to express an ethic of care for nature or develop an understanding of natural processes. These things seem to be learned when they are an explicit aim of experiential activities and when they are mediated in appropriate ways. (Nicol, et al, 2007: 5)
That is to say, as mentioned in this quote, students may value outdoor education as
pedagogy, but its role as curriculum is also necessary in order to move towards a praxis
for outdoor education. What I have suggested is that such a framing of outdoor education
as praxis can only occur if we are clear in the relation, and limitations, of the field as
either curriculum or pedagogy and how this manages to play out in the public school
system.
Therefore, a final note on the integration of outdoor education in public schools
worth discussing deals with the exact nature of how we need to frame, or understand,
such an interaction and how outdoor education establishes its roles under such a system.
It is vital that all ‘providers’ have a clear understanding that pupils on outdoor courses are there for educational rather than recreational purposes and that they are trained to deliver these. Consequently in the design of programmes it is always important to consider the aims, assumptions, methods and content, before any evaluation allows claims to be made… Without a careful process like this it is easy to jump from ‘aims for the programme’ to ‘claims about the effectiveness of the programme’. (Higgins, 2008 – refers to original work done by Nicol in his doctoral thesis)
From this, the discussion of this thesis also needs to consider the aims of program
development instead of the claims about the effectiveness of such programs. That is to
say, early on in this thesis I outlined the established processes of both outdoor and
experiential education, however, once the discussion moved towards outdoor education in
282
schools it became apparent in Chapters Four, Five, and Six that this position was not as
easily defined. This problem I have been suggesting rests in a substantive way upon
which the duality of outdoor curriculum and pedagogy exists for schools. Certainly
claims about program effectiveness exist, some of which I have already included in this
chapter, but the discussion I wish to focus on is the aims for such programs. It is this
articulation, along with a consideration of how to develop teacher training programs that
can potentially strengthen this interaction between outdoor education and public schools.
Along these lines, Higgins (2008) suggests that:
If experiential and outdoor educational approaches are to prove influential these may at some stages of schooling be a radical alternative, but at others complementary to mainstream education. In Scotland any lobby seeking political support for outdoor learning will require to develop mutual understanding and collaborate with mainstream education communities to have any hope of gaining ground.
Thus, what I suggest is that greater integration of outdoor education in public schools
requires the understanding of its aims as described in terms of the context of curriculum
and/or pedagogy.
8.1.3 Struggles between Adventure and Environmental Education
The fundamental focus of this thesis has been on outdoor adventure education as a
‘case study’ utilizing experiential education theory and its potential synergy with public
schools, in terms of curriculum and pedagogy. In Chapter Two, a distinction in definition
between adventure education and environmental education was made, with reference to
key characteristics as defined by Priest (1990). In addition, it has been noted that outdoor
(adventure) education in schools has been on a decline in the last number of years
(Kendall, et al, 2006 – a UK study), which has also been noted by the reduced rate of
283
recent journal publications on this topic (for example in the Journal of Experiential
Education there were 16 key articles between 2001-04 but only 5 key articles between
2005-09). Of course, what is very interesting to note is that our society, over the last
decade, has developed a greater awareness and focus on environmental education and
action. Recycling, alternate energy, green building, life-cycle analysis of consumer
products, etc. all dominate our understanding of our impacts on the natural environment
and resources. Thus, it could be valuable to tease out any possible characteristics of
adventure education, on the decline in schools, versus environmental education, which I
would argue is on the rise.
At this point I would once again like to consider Schön’s notion of technical
rationality (1983). Environmental education might be considered more conducive to a
model of technical rationality, with an emphasis in the sciences, than perhaps adventure
education, with an emphasis on personal growth and development. This is not to say that
a great deal of environmental education and action does not follow reflective model II
type behaviors for group dynamics and construction of knowledge; it is, however,
suggestive that environmental education has a greater susceptibility to falling under a
scheme of technical rationality. What becomes interesting to note at this stage is how
technical rationality spans other professions, and thus public school education would also
find itself under these potential circumstances. For example, an argument could be made
that the sciences and maths traditionally hold to a model of technical rationality more
than other subjects, and thus possibly become more easily integrated in a school system
traditionally based on ‘provable outcomes of student achievement’. Here measurement
and data analysis become tools for gaining curricular merit and worth. If a similar
284
argument is suggested for outdoor education, one could see how environmental education
might gain more ‘worth’ in the school system than would adventure education. Hence, I
would tentatively suggest that, apart from the obvious value environmental education has
for schools and society, the rise in focus on environmental education has resulted in a
corresponding decrease in adventure education. Environmental education has potentially
shifted thinking away from adventure education priorities for outdoor education in
general (not only in terms of its value, but also its alignment with society’s preoccupation
with technical rationality).
However, this distinction becomes important when we consider the role of
outdoor education in schools either as pedagogy or curriculum. Although there can be a
significant overlap between the two, what I would like to suggest is that adventure
education, with its focus on experiential education and group dynamics, is more
conducive to its implementation as a pedagogy for schools, whereas environmental
education is more aligned with curriculum programming for schools. The difficulty with
this arises when one considers that environmental education, as curriculum, has already
gained significant ground in public school programming. Therefore, it could be suggested
that by creating a shift in outdoor education away from adventure and towards
environmental education, a weakening of distinct outdoor programs in schools has
occurred. Teachers and administrators may view ‘outdoor education’ as environmental
education, see it done in other subject areas, and thereby dismiss the need for a distinct
outdoor education program. Of course, in doing this the effective pedagogy of adventure
and experiential education is weakened, or potentially lost, in schools by not clearly
making the distinction between this and its function as curriculum. Although this
285
argument might well represent an entire doctoral dissertation in and of itself, it has been
presented here to reinforce, at the very least, a need to establish this distinction between
curriculum and pedagogy in teacher training programs in outdoor education (providing a
‘balanced’ view) in order to benefit its field and what it can bring to the public school
system.
286
8.2 Design and Structure of a Balanced Outdoor Education Training Program
During the discussion in this chapter, I have attempted to articulate the differences
between outdoor education as curriculum versus pedagogy, and to suggest that without a
clear understanding of this field as either in the school system that they can potentially
work against each other in schools. However, based on the work and initiatives currently
existing for both curricula-based programming and integrated programming, it is not
possible to claim one is ‘better’ than the other. Therefore, in order to consider how
teachers may bring outdoor education into their schools, there becomes a need for teacher
training programs that can expose these teachers to both systems of outdoor education
delivery. Such a view shares similarities with other systems already suggested for teacher
training in outdoor education.
Outdoor education is now seen within the profession as drawing upon the 3 main areas of outdoor activities, environmental education and social and personal development. A good outdoor educator may well be focusing attention on one or other of these at any given time but will still be sensitive to opportunities to guide experience within the complementary areas. (Higgins, 1995: 4)
Here, Higgins addresses the need for all areas of outdoor education to be understood and
at least partially utilized in order to strengthen any one focus or position by leaning on the
other two. What is interesting to note is the potential similarity that surfaces between
environmental education as an emphasis on curriculum, and personal and social
education as a pedagogy driving outdoor education experiences. Framed in these terms,
we might then wish to consider outdoor activities similar to a medium for such learning
to occur. Here I am not attempting to redefine Higgins’ views of well-rounded outdoor
programs, but rather to suggest that it provides a complimentary support to the work and
ideas presented here in this thesis. What this view also helps to bring to light is the fact
287
that although we may be able to (and want to) make distinctions in outdoor education in
schools either as curriculum or pedagogy, and may lean towards one more than the other
for any given program, we should not abandon the other entirely.
This suggestion of well-balanced programs places an emphasis on being able to
train teachers to become aware and to utilize positively both outdoor curriculum and
pedagogy in schools. Thus effective course design for teacher training programs in
outdoor education must be carefully constructed to allow the teacher candidates to think
across and between curriculum and pedagogy and be able to make these distinctions in
order to lean appropriately depending on the context or situation. From this, we can
consider:
Course design can be treated as a systematic problem solving exercise. This model breaks the process down into a logical sequence of problems. As each is resolved the structure of the outdoor event that will achieve the desired outcome emerges. (Loynes, 1997: 45)
Here, Loynes suggests a model for program design, which can just as easily be utilized
for teacher training programs as it would be for student and public school based
programs. The key stages to his design model includes: identifying needs, specifying
performance, identifying learner needs, determining objectives, selecting strategies,
obtaining materials, and the finally conducting training. What I suggest is that such a
stage design model can be used here to carefully tease apart outdoor objectives in schools
that may lean more heavily in one direction as either curriculum-based or pedagogy
driven. Loynes’ emphasis on this stage design is to ensure that that proper objectives and
outcomes are created for an effective complimentary program, rather than one based on
possible untested assumptions that could weaken such programs.
288
In practice many teachers short circuit the design sequence or, alternatively, go about it in a different order. The teacher often has an intrinsic sense of the worth of an event such as a residential experience. Student evaluation may support this view with generalised feedback that says it was ‘good’. The teacher then ends up attempting to work back through the sequence to justify the activity in the light of the organisation’s aims. If undertaken in this way the result can be defensiveness from colleagues who perceive the teacher’s attempts as competing with their own efforts to justify their courses. It is also likely that there will be a lack of understanding from other colleagues about how this element fits in to the whole picture and might contribute to their courses rather than threaten them. By working the sequence through in the correct order these possibilities can be avoided. The course will be viewed as an integral part of an overall educational strategy and the commitment of colleagues can be obtained. This situation can be the cause of the continuously marginal position of Outdoor Education in the curriculum. (Loynes, 1997: 46)
From these quotes, if we contextualize outdoor education and its aims in terms of
curriculum or pedagogy, then this process in which an educator can go about to ‘justify’
such programs would also help articulate its position and understanding in terms of either
content or method.
By first considering a teacher training model that draws from all three areas of
outdoor education – outdoor activities, environmental education and social and personal
development (as suggested by Higgins), and the need to consider an effective process of
course design, it will now be worthwhile to examine a case study of such a program for
teacher training in outdoor education.
8.2.1 Case Study: The Moray House School of Education
In 1972 The Moray House School of Education (formally known as the Moray
House Institute of Education and the Moray House College of Education), at the
University of Edinburgh offered its first diploma program in outdoor education. It is
289
believed that Scotland was one of the first places in the world where outdoor education
became formalized (Higgins, 2008). Since this time, their programs have grown in scope
and size, and have included postgraduate certificates and diplomas in outdoor education,
Masters in outdoor education, BEd in physical education, and a BA in recreational
management (Higgins, 1995). Currently, their program specializes in postgraduate
certification and degrees at the Masters and doctoral levels, while undergraduate
initiatives remain only as elective courses for students training to become teachers in
secondary schools. In addition, they also offer an outdoor education option for and
alongside Moray House’s regular Postgraduate Diploma in Education. Moray House is
believed to have run the first Masters degree in outdoor education in Europe (Higgins &
Morgan, 1999: 14), and now they offer a research PhD program. Three streams offered
for their postgraduate programs include outdoor education, personal and social outdoor
education, and outdoor environmental and sustainability education.
The training programs offered at the outdoor education section of Moray House
consist of broad-based curricula, theory, and practice in outdoor and experiential
education.
Courses are designed to provide an opportunity for professionals to gain the knowledge and skills to enable them to plan and implement safe and relevant outdoor learning experiences, including those based in residential settings. Throughout the courses there is emphasis on the underpinning philosophy of experiential outdoor education. (Higgins, 1995: 6)
These various programs allow for the direct training of public school teachers, among
others, in outdoor education while acknowledging that curriculum alone is insufficient
without a social context in which to frame such experiences.
As the majority of our students are training for posts as teachers or outdoor education instructors, the message is clear that the development of
290
physical outdoor skill lacks depth unless it is focused on personal and social skills of an ethic of ‘sustainable’ use of the countryside. (Higgins, 1995: 7)
Most programs at the certificate, diploma, and Masters levels have been broken
down into modularized sections for teaching and delivery (Higgins & Morgan, 1999: 10).
Main areas of focus include 1) professional practice in outdoor education, 2) learning and
teaching in an experiential context, 3) environmental education perspectives, and 4)
social context and personal development. These core areas of study represent detailed
depth of focus for the underpinnings of both theory and practice for outdoor education to
be successfully utilized and taught by public school teachers, and I would suggest that it
goes beyond ‘typical’ outdoor education training programs that focus more on technical
and safety skills. This embodiment of outdoor education as a field of study rather than
just isolated program activities provides a solid foundation for growth of this profession
and should be considered an important case study for other fledging outdoor teacher
training programs.
This greater scope of study, however, does not imply that the programs offered at
Moray House in outdoor education have steered away from practical and safety
considerations required for effective program delivery to students. Recognizing the
needed skill base for such programs, they offer additional competency courses at the
diploma and Masters levels including technical, expedition, and placement components,
and these are referred to as the ‘Professional Development Programme’. These
competency courses focus on three main areas: 1) technical competence, 2) professional
competence “taken as an expression of the ability to ‘teach’, ‘instruct’ or ‘facilitate’ in a
vocational context.” (Higgins & Morgan, 1999: 13), and 3) sound judgment.
291
When we examine such a detailed and comprehensive training program as this, it
is interesting to note how there becomes a subtle articulation, I would argue, in seeing
outdoor education operate as both curriculum and pedagogy (even though it may not be
explicitly worded in these terms). Patterns and ideas discussed in curricular-based
programming, as described in Chapter Five of this thesis, align well with Moray House’s
modularized section on environmental education perspectives. Likewise, elements of
integrated programming, as described in Chapter Six of this thesis, align nicely with
Moray House’s component on social context and personal development. Here, I would
argue that such an extensive and established training facility as this has naturally
developed specialized teaching modules to address the very issue of curriculum versus
pedagogy that I suggest in this thesis, but that it has done so in terms of a tacit knowledge
of the field rather than the through the formal articulation I propose.
From the program structure and research done at Moray House, I will now
examine in greater depth the needs of public school teachers within such training
programs. By doing so, what I will demonstrate is that how thinking about outdoor
education in terms of curriculum and/or pedagogy can both assist the training of the
teacher candidates in these programs as well as strengthening the structure and use of
such programs themselves.
8.2.2 The Needs within a Teacher-Training Program
When examining the contributions that teacher training in outdoor education has
in terms of preparing teachers to integrate such programs into the public system, it is
important to understand how such training will frame priorities. That is to say, if formal
292
training of teachers in outdoor education occurs, what are the values that such an
approach can best encourage? One such study suggests that:
When the responses from providers about how they can contribute to the curriculum are coded it is clear that they prioritise their work in terms of first, personal and social development; second, environmental education; and third, outdoor activities. (Nicol, et al, 2006: 47)
Here it is important to note that referring to the curriculum of a teacher-training program
does not place an emphasis on curricula-based programming in schools, as the primary
interest stated in the above quote as personal and social development is more closely
aligned with outdoor education as seen as pedagogy. As previously mentioned in this
chapter, a balanced approach should be taken in terms of considering outdoor education
as pedagogy and curriculum, and here it is also suggestive that this can be thought of in
terms of personal and social development, environmental education, and outdoor
activities. This three-fold consideration of outdoor education also nicely aligns with the
idea that environmental education and outdoor activities, if thought of as adventure
education, have separate outcomes that can be seen as divisible. For example,
environmental education could be thought of as a medium for content delivery of
sustainability issues while outdoor activities might be used as a method of developing
experiential-based group interactions. Again, this broader-based understanding of outdoor
education would still be within the framework of what Nicol suggests as personal and
social development, which has also been noted by others as an importance.
The emphasis in training has, for some time now, been on encouraging teachers and instructors to extend their aspirations for their students beyond the physical to the academic, aesthetic, spiritual, environmental and social. (Higgins & Morgan, 1999: 9)
293
Set within this three pillar program approach (of personal & social development,
environmental, and outdoor activities), it is also beneficial to examine more detailed
skills for which teachers would need to develop in order to run such outdoor programs. In
the past, these were often defined as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ skills, where the hard skill sets are
now more often defined as those technical skills needed for the profession, while soft
skills are better represented as the intrapersonal skills needed to lead such programs.
Though these have traditionally been the two defining skill sets for outdoor education,
other considerations are important to include.
Despite the wide range of options for work in this field there are competences that are common to everyone. These can be divided into three types: Technical skills such as safety management, administrations skills and environmental skills. Process skills such as instructing and group leadership. Meta skills such as sound judgement, creative thinking, ethical behaviour and clear vision. The technical skills are the easiest to train in and the quickest to acquire whilst the meta skills grow over a lifetime. With this in mind many employers recruit for the meta and process skills knowing that the appropriate technical skills can be easily developed once you start work. (Loynes & Higgins, 1997: 23)
What is interesting to note here is the distinction of meta skills, or judgment skills, from
that of technical and process skills. In Chapter Four of this thesis, the discussion of
qualification versus certification examined the criticism of these meta skills not being met
by training programs, but rather as lifelong skills in development. Loynes and Higgins
also recognized this aspect, and considered teacher training as only one possible avenue
for this career, and also included on-the-job training, volunteer or training placements,
and youth training or apprenticeship as alternatives to higher education (Loynes &
Higgins, 1997: 24).
294
In addition to technical, process, and meta skills, it has been suggested that other
skill sets may be necessary for teacher training programs to give exposure to. Two other
such skill sets have been coined ‘warm skills’ and ‘green skills’.
Warm skills consider how we meet nature (our ‘manners’) and the ways in which the educator works to create an overall ambience within the group. This is a crucial antecedent to developing a reconceived ‘human–nature’ relationship. Green skills pertain to an instructor’s ability to ground the experience within stories, meanings, and contexts that are deeply relevant to local culture. (Beames, 2006: 5)
It could be argued that these skills are perhaps a sub-set of process (or personal and
social) skills. Yet they still help to define a dynamic social relation present in outdoor
education that may be more complex than what is encountered in the typical school
classroom.
What now becomes important to understand about all these skills (and subsets) is
in how they relate to the exact role that outdoor education plays in teacher training.
Instead of thinking in terms of technical versus interpersonal skills, we could frame the
argument in terms of the curriculum of outdoor education versus that of its pedagogy.
That is to say, when outdoor educators debate about the merits of developing the
technical skills in new teacher candidates, they are naturally referring to a curriculum
base of outdoor education. Likewise, to place emphasis on personal development skills is
suggestive of viewing the approach or pedagogy of outdoor education as an important
foundation for new teachers. By framing the argument as such, this might also help shed
light on the older argument of which is more important to teach, the technical or
interpersonal skills of outdoor education. Now we can understand that each side may be
referring to essentially a more divisive point; outdoor education tacitly seen as both
curriculum and pedagogy.
295
8.2.3 The Needs for a Teacher-Training Program
In addition to the benefits that teacher training programs can provide to the
individual teacher wishing to bring outdoor education into their classroom and schools, I
would suggest that the role of teacher training programs is even larger, and that the need
to maintain outdoor education as a field of study could potentially rest on the initiatives
of such programs. Central to the theme of this thesis, the role of outdoor education as
curriculum versus pedagogy, I would argue, is important to consider when dealing with
teacher training in this field.
‘Outdoor Education is not so much a subject but rather an approach to education.’ This was a statement made by the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department in February 1991 in response to a strong proposal to create a Teaching Qualification for teachers of Outdoor Education… As a result of this view a teaching qualification was not created and GTC registration remains impossible. (Loynes, Michie & Smith, 1997: 16)
Here is a clear example of why we need to distinguish between outdoor education as
pedagogy versus curriculum. The argument taken by the Scottish Office Education and
Industry Department framed the argument for outdoor education as one of curriculum. If
the distinction was made in the two roles of outdoor education, it may have been possible
to articulate circumstances or instances when outdoor education could be utilized as
curriculum, as in the case of the Australian and New Zealand systems discussed in
Chapter Five of this thesis. By doing so, creating this distinction could prevent the
disarming of outdoor education on merits of curriculum or pedagogy by those citing the
opposite examples that programs may rely on. In the above quote, one could now argue
and demonstrate that the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department framed their
296
argument of outdoor education as one of pedagogy, then further cite work done in the
Australian and New Zealand systems as curricular-based programming, thereby
questioning the Department’s refusal for teacher registration based on not actually
understanding the full scope of the outdoor education field.
Although I would argue that the strengthening of outdoor education in schools is
very dependant on understanding its role as curriculum and pedagogy, there is still much
that formalized teacher training in this field could bring to its incorporation into public
schools. As discussed in Chapter Four of this thesis, the duality of teachers requiring
expertise in both public school education methods and theory, and a background in
outdoor education makes the availability of such teachers low. Therefore, in cases where
a school system may value outdoor education it may still be possible that its effectiveness
in the classroom is not seen because of this issue of teacher training in this mixed field of
outdoor education and classroom teaching.
Other forms of support [for schools] were requested too, notably in terms of training for staff (primarily accredited by universities etc) where some providers suggested better links between the academic world, the outdoor sector and schools, and also in initial teacher training and qualifications (both general and specific) and in-service provision. This is consistent with the findings amongst teachers. (Nicol, et al, 2006: 6)
From Nicol’s study, it was suggested that better links between academia, the outdoor
sector, and schools may be met with an increase in Initial Teacher Education (ITE)
courses, providing Additional Teaching Qualifications (ATQ), and also the opportunity
of postgraduate certifications in outdoor education and an increase in staff in-service
courses for teachers (Nicol, et al, 2006: 44).
Another detailed study in England indicated that a critical examination of general
teacher training programs to include outdoor education (and other education outside the
297
classroom) was necessary in order to provide valuable learning opportunities for the
teachers involved.
The main objectives of EOtC [education outside the classroom] training provided on primary and secondary courses focused on ‘preparing and enabling trainees to run EOtC activities’ and ‘enabling trainees to maximise pupil learning during EOtC’. There was less of a focus on gauging the quality or measuring the impact of such experiences, or enabling trainees to experience how pupils behaved in different environments. (Kendall, et al, 2006: 20)
That is to say, although some teacher training programs gave teachers exposure to
outdoor and experiential education, a concern arose that the quality of such experiences
had not been critically examined. Thus variance in such teacher experiences meant that
the “vast majority of the coordination of EOtC training was the responsibility of
individual course or subject directors” (Kendall, et al, 2006: 31), thereby potentially
weakening the effectiveness of such programs due to lack of uniformity. Here the study
indicated that frequently there was not a minimum expectation for EOtC in general
teacher training, and that the typically short periods of time did not focus on practical
experiences (Kendall, et al, 2006: 43).
Overall, three key issues emerged from the study: the variation between institutions; the possibility that some students may be inadequately prepared for EOtC; and the lack of quality assurance resulting from course and programme directors’ lack of knowledge of what happens on school placements. (Kendall, et al, 2006: 71)
Certainly a suggestion to address this situation is the development of teacher training
programs specific to outdoor education. From this, it could also be possible to use these
initiatives to provide other detailed exposure to teachers in more general teacher training
programs.
298
The idea of the need for teacher training in outdoor education to provide a
leadership role for other teachers currently in the school system attempting to provide
such experiences can also be important for this field of study.
Despite the lack of curricular imperative, some teachers reported remarkable efforts to get their pupils outdoors, often citing curricular justification as a major reason for doing so. However the lack of structure and prescription may also act as a barrier to delivery in some cases. (Nicol, et al, 2007: 6)
In this study, it was noted that teachers saw the benefits of outdoor education in different
ways, particularly noting a difference between teachers already engaged in outdoor
education versus those that are not. Additionally, I would argue that the role of outdoor
education as either curriculum versus pedagogy would also play out in this argument
once teachers understood which (or perhaps both) of these aims they saw as important
objectives, but such distinctions were not made (as is the general case within outdoor
education studies).
If teachers whose attitudes and situations are less conducive to outdoor study are to be encouraged to take learning outdoors, there may be little point in, for example, providing extra resources, when the root cause includes understanding (or lack of understanding) of the benefits. Increasing outdoor study may also depend on some form of staff training or the development of an appreciation or legitimisation of the wider benefits of outdoor study. (Nicol, et al, 2007: 6)
That is to say, if teachers can not articulate the aims of outdoor education they value,
which I argue needs to be framed in terms of curriculum and/or pedagogy, then further
initiatives to promote outdoor education in schools could be in vain. In the above quote it
was also noted that part of problem for this separation in thinking arose due in part to
limitations to outdoor opportunities as part of the teacher’s own training. “As there is no
requirement to deliver teacher training outdoors (or even to refer to education outdoors)
299
any such training is entirely at the whim of the Teacher Education Institution” (Nicol, et
al, 2007: 13).
From this discussion on the needs of establishing teacher training programs to
enhance outdoor education in schools, it has been noted that much variance occurs with
such training and that this fact in and of itself leaves outdoor education susceptible to
opposition dismantling its perceived arguments from the outside of such systems.
For our purposes, then, we evaluate school outdoor learning in Scotland as follows: (a) current patterns of outdoor learning provision can be described as being variable; (b) this variability is in part influenced by varying teacher perspectives on the relationships between outdoor learning and the official curriculum; (c) the costs of outdoor learning are perceived to be exceptionally high; and (d) the combined effect of (b) and (c) has left outdoor learning exceptionally exposed to school-by-school and teacher-by-teacher decision-making, and thus the highly variable pattern identified above. (Beames, Atencio & Ross, 2009: 37)
Of course, central to my argument that outdoor education needs to be seen as potentially
operating either as curriculum or pedagogy in public schools, this point I believe helps
address this issue of variability. In many cases, if the perspectives of teacher, training
organization, and school system recognize this fundamental difference in potential use or
approach for outdoor education, then perhaps this clarification of language could assist
this field in its role in public schooling.
300
8.3 Enhancing Outdoor Education in Schools through Integrated Programming
In terms of providing a stronger teacher training program in outdoor education
that allows for the articulation and understanding of outdoor education as either
curriculum and/or pedagogy, there is one last aspect of this I wish to examine for the
establishment of such training programs: the enhancement of student learning through the
use of integrated programming.
Outdoor education theorists suggest that programs need to incorporate ‘broad adventure’ where there is less emphasis on short, adrenaline-filled activities, and a greater focus on taking responsibility for more substantial outdoor challenges with uncertain outcomes, and all of this deeply rooted with a strong sense of place. (Beames, 2006: 7)
Put simply, the use of experiential education through the medium of outdoor education
requires a longer time of exposure to become a transformative learning moment for the
student (arguably within a social context). This is not to say that actual expeditions need
to become lengthier, but rather the educational context within which it is framed must be
extended. “I should add that journeys do not have to be multiweek arctic canoe trips… A
journey can take place over an academic year and focus on curiosity-driven explorations
of one’s immediate surroundings” (Beames, 2006: 9). Here the concept of integrated
outdoor programming works well to meet these needs by providing a mechanism of
extended student exposure to this field.
While examining how to enhance the effectiveness of outdoor education for
students, Beames and others considered three dimensions of outdoor learning, and I
would suggest that such considerations fit nicely with the integrated outdoor
programming model. [Note: the authors here speak of three dimensions for effective
integrated programming, but these are different from the dimensions of outdoor education
301
as in, through, about and for the natural heritage as referred to by Higgins (2008) as
Beames et al are essentially talking about the means/approach whereas ‘in, through,
about and for’ are about place, approach, content and values.]
Effective outdoor learning needs to move away from fragmented ‘canned’ sessions towards journeys, involve the pupils negotiating what is learned with their teachers, and be place-conscious. (Beames, Atencio & Ross, 2009: 33)
The first dimension for effective outdoor learning considered by Beames et al is a shift
from fragmented or ‘ready-made’ sessions towards journeys as a means to learn better
about self and social relations. Here the authors considered that for effective transference
to a learner’s life, outdoor experiences had to be of a greater duration with an emphasis
on self-organized journeys that allowed for a move away from pre-established activities
that simply used the outdoor environment as a medium. “There does not appear to be an
overwhelming base of evidence that these kinds of outdoor experiences [ready made
sessions] have any meaningful transfer into pupils’ lives back at their school or home
community” (Beames, Atencio & Ross, 2009: 33). Certainly from the research presented
in Chapter Seven of this thesis, these elements of self-organized journeys were present in
the teachers’ integrated outdoor programs. The second dimension considered here is a
shift for programs from universal to place-based focus. Here this considers the degree to
which programs are grounded in a sense of place. “Outdoor education programs should
be rooted in the history, ecology, culture, and stories of the place they are in” (Beames,
2006: 9). That is to say, when developing outdoor education programs for schools, the
exact nature and implementation of such programs should be based on a particular
context. This reinforces the notion that standardization of outdoor education programs
does not create identical models in every school since the actual sense of ‘place’ varies.
302
Instead, the authors felt that programs which align towards a particular context or
situation create a learning environment that better suits the needs of the students. Again,
it was interesting to notice that in the integrated programs surveyed for the primary
research for this thesis, because of the time demands such programs required of students,
there was variance in how and what each program offered in order to meet the needs of
the students and the school. For example, EarthQuest designed an integrated program that
fostered learning using the natural mountainous landscape for adventurous journeys,
while the Northern Outdoor Studies Program (NOS) was designed to meet the needs of
workforce job placement in logging, resource and wildlife management for its local
community. Each utilized outdoor and experiential education but in a manner that was
sensitive to their exact learning environment. The third dimension considered was a shift
from a model of instructor-driven programs to learning-negotiated programs. Here, this
considers the degree to which students have choice in what and how they learn.
Teachers on the inner part of this dimension are those who are not overly authoritarian or prescriptive in their approach. Although uncertainty can be challenging for teachers and pupils alike, this more ‘generative’ approach, where knowledge is co-constructed by the learner and facilitator together, may be most able to cater to the needs and interests of individual students. (Beames, Atencio & Ross, 2009: 34)
Here, Beames et al did not frame a laissez-faire approach to teaching when considering a
learning-negotiated environment, but rather that the teacher must be aware of how best to
manage a group.
The notion of instructors retaining a fair amount of discretionary power may be regarded by some theorists as unexperiential, but I am hard-pressed to think of any experiential education programs that are so experiential they don’t need a facilitator… It is the instructor’s privilege to have control over the group and it requires tremendous judgment to know how and when to use it. (Beames, 2006: 8)
303
Although these three dimensions for outdoor education may not be exclusive to
integrated programming, what I would suggest is, at the very least, these elements are
certainly enhanced by such a delivery method and reinforces that such a model should be
considered a great framework for the integration of outdoor education in public schools.
Therefore, I would argue that the use of integrated programming, along with the
articulation of when and how outdoor education is used both as curriculum and pedagogy
are foundational aspects for any solid teacher training program in this field. I propose that
the these foundational aspects, utilized in effective programming (such as the Moray
House case study), would provide a system that has the potential to enhance the exposure
of outdoor education to students in the public school system and allow teachers to
overcome certain learning binds that have disadvantaged such programs in schools in the
past.
304
Chapter 9 – Conclusions and Future Work
9.1 Conclusions
It has been suggested that teaching needs to be thought of as a triadic relation
between teacher, student, and content. “There is a familiar logical point to be made about
teaching: it is a triadic relation. For all X, if X teaches, there must exist somebody who,
and something that, is taught by X” (Passmore, 1980: 21). Essentially, this argument
suggests that when one speaks of teaching something or someone that they necessarily
have to assume the other. For example, to say ‘we teach students’ is to imply that we
teach them something, even if that something is not defined by the sentence, or that ‘we
teach science’ implies that we teach this to somebody. That is to say, we teach something
to someone.
I would like to suggest that this definition can be further expanded in order to
better articulate our concept of education. Here, in order to define teaching, I propose that
we must consider four points rather than just three, and I would expand the definition to
the following: We teach something to someone in someway. The commonsense of this
statement can be easily understood, as many educators spend a great deal of their time
and energy designing different ways to teach their set curriculum to the same group of
students in order to enhance their learning and retention. Therefore, even if the
‘someway’ is not explicitly stated, it is still very important to consider in a definition of
teaching. To say that two different educators ‘teach science to high school students’ does
not suggest that both teachings are identical (even if we try), and this can be understood
in terms of the someway they deliver the same something to the same someone.
305
Under these definitions, a clear distinction is made between the ‘something’,
which can be thought of as curriculum, and the ‘someway’, which can be thought of as
pedagogy. Such an understanding of teaching also allows us to consider these factors as
separate and divisible, although certainly interconnected. In this thesis, I have undertaken
and developed a comprehensive argument that articulates the roles that outdoor education
has to play in terms of curriculum and as pedagogy, and I also demonstrated how these
can potentially interact with the public education system.
9.1.1 The Relation of Curriculum and Pedagogy for Outdoor Education
The understanding of the role of outdoor education in public schools has been
supported in the work of this thesis by a thorough examination of both existing literature
and primary research data. The background of both outdoor and experiential education
was explored and defined, and additionally the potential compatibility between outdoor
education and schools was addressed in terms of the roles of the institution and the
educator. Under this framework, this dissertation contributes to the discussion by
considering the exact nature and role of outdoor education in schools, and what
limitations or challenges this creates for its inclusion. Contextualizing outdoor education
as either pedagogy and/or curriculum involved the detailed study of curricula-based
outdoor programs operating in New Zealand and Australia, integrated outdoor programs
operating in North America, to date the broadest survey of Canadian integrated outdoor
programs as primary research, and some teacher training initiatives in Scotland. As such,
the doctoral work presented here represents some key global views of outdoor education
and how the field can potentially, and does, operate in the public school system.
306
To conclude the discussion of outdoor education’s role as either curriculum or
pedagogy, I would like to take an example to articulate this from my own past. Following
my university education in Science and Education, I spent a year working in the private
outdoor industry prior to becoming a classroom teacher. During this time I worked for a
scuba diving provider and developed a detailed scuba program that was offered to grade
eight students. Designed as a one-day exploratory program, students were taken to the
local IMAX theater where they watched Into the Deep, a 3-D immersion experience in
cold water diving. This was followed by a ‘teaching session’ which included various
group activities focused on problem solving skills developed for underwater work (such
as hand signals for communication) and a hands-on ‘show & tell’ including ROVs
(remote operated vehicles), commercial diving equipment, and old military grade dive
gear (including the famous Mark V dive helmet). But the greatest experience was in the
afternoon session where, in a local pool, all students were given the chance to actually
scuba dive (two feet underwater in the shallow end), and also operate a commercially
certified ROV. Feedback from students, teachers, and parents was overwhelmingly
positive. The local television station aired a piece that referred to ‘having a classroom at
the bottom of a pool’. (I also later developed a high school program that had students run
through an underwater obstacle course and attempt to assemble a ‘widget’ underwater
while wearing industrial dive gloves).
What is important to take from such an example is how outdoor education (as
pedagogy and/or curriculum) was actually used, and more critically, how we can define
such use in order to understand its potential influence in the school system. Through the
lens of curriculum, the program was developed to expose students to concepts and terms
307
used in recreational diving, marine research, and the commercial diving industry.
Emphasis on underwater communication, equipment design, and environmental hazards
was explored. The mini-curriculum guide developed also included links to school
subjects such as science, English, maritime and local history, math, and technology
education. Yet, through the lens of pedagogy, the role of experiential education was seen
in terms of the students actually participating in a scuba experience (and learning how to
operate an ROV), which brought them into a physically (underwater) and socially (dive-
buddy reliance) unfamiliar environment. In terms of using the theory of experiential
education to provide an action and reflection cycle to construct knowledge, here students
developed first-hand knowledge to understand how to stay submerged in the shallow end
of the pool, since buoyancy characteristics were intentionally not covered in the
classroom sessions. The mini de-brief session at the end of the program had students
reflecting on personal challenges and limitations that were discovered during the exercise
of which most students were not previously aware.
The key point to this example is that the role of outdoor education as curriculum
and pedagogy, specific for the school system, is separable. Where the outdoor industry
sector requires both a topic and a method, the school system at times may need to draw
possibly only from one. For example, in the above program if the school system held
value to the curriculum, it would have been possible to teach the scuba theory in a
traditional classroom setting, showing pictures and describing the history of the trade. Yet
if the school system saw the value in the experience, possibly as a means to develop
student empowerment and teamwork, then the scuba experience in the pool may have
been undertaken without any reference to how such skills are used in the various
308
professions that were presented. This division between curriculum and pedagogy exists
because the school system can act to become surrogate to one form; if outdoor education
is used as content then it could be done using the existing school structure (outdoor
education as curriculum with public school as pedagogy), while if it is used as pedagogy
then it could meet personal development goals already existing for students (outdoor
education as pedagogy with public school as curriculum).
What is also interesting to note about this example is in how it demonstrates
possible limitations that can arise with the use of outdoor education in schools. This
thesis focused on outdoor education as curricular-based outdoor programming and as
integrated outdoor programming, yet this example of the scuba program falls under the
unexplored category of supplemental outdoor programming, and the reasoning for not
examining supplemental outdoor programming can now be fully understood. Feedback
for the example of the scuba program from teachers was very positive, but it also
revealed that essentially no reflective summary or other activities were ever done with the
students prior to or after undertaking the program. As curriculum, the program remained
isolated and unimportant to what teachers taught in the classroom and valued as ‘graded’
material for students. As pedagogy, the program lacked any significant duration needed
to become transformative in nature to student thinking or action and was a far cry from
anything that might have been considered a rite of passage. So essentially, even though
the program was developed in terms of both curriculum and pedagogy, it became nothing
more than an exciting leisure activity for students simply because of how the public
school did not incorporate such a learning moment into their existing system.
309
This leads to the second key point that I have argued in this thesis: not only do we
need to understand outdoor education in terms of pedagogy and curriculum, but in doing
so it suggests how outdoor education can be more successfully incorporated into the
public school system by use of such a distinction.
9.1.2 The Integration of Outdoor Education in Public Schools
When considering the relation of curriculum and pedagogy in the public school
system, it is worthwhile to notice the hierarchical levels at which both play out.
Curriculum design can be thought of as operating at a higher level than the individual
school or classroom, either at the school board or provincial Department of Education
levels. Although every teacher works with curriculum, and certainly there is an aspect of
defining and framing such curriculum, it is nevertheless essentially prescribed to
teachers. As a profession, teachers are given standardized curriculum documents from
their school board and province to teach to students. This higher operational level within
public education is where value judgments are made on what material is deemed worthy
of student study. In contrast, this decision control level differs once one talks of
pedagogy. Although school boards and provincial Departments of Education attempt to
suggest ‘best practices’ when it comes to pedagogy, most of the control of how to deliver
content rests in the creative approach of the individual classroom teacher. Within the
same school in the same year, two teachers may approach the same prescribed curriculum
for a course in two very different ways. One may be more traditional and ‘teach to the
exam’, relying on memorization and rote practice drills, while another may use a more
310
progressive approach and develop a community of enquirers and lead-takers in their
students and classroom.
In terms of outdoor education and this thesis, both the literature of this field and
my own primary research have indicated that teachers identify difficulties and limitations
when attempting to validate the content of outdoor education to administrators and other
teachers. This can be thought of clearly in terms of such curriculum values operating at a
level higher up than the individual classroom. Yet, in the same feedback, when
examining challenges with outdoor education in the context of pedagogy, teachers often
spoke of such things as time constraints, safety concerns, and training experience, all of
which operate at the classroom level. With this consideration, I suggest that
understanding outdoor education as curriculum and/or pedagogy does more than simply
further articulate a definition, but that it proposes a different set of operating features,
levels of decision making, and limitations.
This becomes an important feature once one talks of teacher training programs in
outdoor education for public school teachers. Here, not only does there become the need
for teachers to understand how they may use outdoor education, in terms of curriculum
and pedagogy, but that such use naturally determines how the existing school system will
potentially respond to such programs. That is to say, I suggest there is a chronology
needed to be understood for establishing outdoor programs in schools. Since teacher
training programs, if looking at outdoor education, are preparing individual teachers to
initially operate at the classroom level, I suggest that such teachers have a better chance
at incorporating outdoor education into schools as pedagogy rather than curriculum.
Here, such teachers can take a thematic approach to teaching already set curriculum
311
through the medium of outdoor education. These programs have the potential to grow in
value and strength, such as was demonstrated through the integrated outdoor programs
surveyed in the primary research of this thesis. In contrast, other teachers early on in their
careers can experience challenge in attempting to demonstrate the ‘value’ of outdoor
education as curriculum since such decisions operate at a higher level in public schooling
which naturally reduces their control.
Yet, as mentioned, I propose we consider a chronology for establishing outdoor
education in public schools, and that this relates to the distinction of outdoor education as
either curriculum or pedagogy. After such pedagogy-driven programs can be developed
in school boards by teachers (operating at the classroom level), this can provide the
opportunity for the higher levels of the educational system to critically examine such
programs. Here, they may come to value such transformative moments for students and
wish to extend such programs more extensively throughout their system of education
delivery. At this hierarchal level of control, curriculum becomes the primary method of
implementation. Yet this has value as a means of ‘justification’ of outdoor education in
school systems, as has been demonstrated by the developments in New Zealand and
Australia school boards (but that is not to say that considerable debate still does not go on
in terms of the curricular value of outdoor education, rather it simply provides the solid
framework for such a debate).
Therefore, articulating outdoor education as both curriculum and pedagogy, as has
been demonstrated throughout this dissertation, allows for the understanding of how such
a field might be potentially incorporated (or fail to be incorporated) into public schools.
By considering a chronology of program development, I suggest that 1) individual
312
teachers being trained in outdoor education programs need to be taught to clearly define
how this field can operate as both curriculum and pedagogy; 2) initial efforts from
classroom teachers need to focus on outdoor education as pedagogy, as this is an area
over which the classroom teacher has more direct influence; 3) that only after the
establishment of various strong programs in outdoor education should the move be made
at higher levels to bring a formalized value of outdoor education as curriculum to public
schools; and 4) by eventually formalizing outdoor education in schools this would allow
for a greater rationale to provide teacher training in outdoor education, thus finally
developing a continual circle of advancement and opportunity for this field in the public
education sector.
313
9.2 Future Work
As the work presented in this thesis represents a refined perspective on how we
may view the interaction of outdoor education in public schools, this obviously leaves
many avenues for future research that can expand and deepen the ideas offered in this
dissertation. Here I will briefly outline some areas where I believe there could be
significant benefit for exploration in regards to further developing the concept of outdoor
education in schools as being framed either as curriculum or pedagogy.
Referred to a number of times throughout this work, the issue of how
environmental education (in its various forms ranging from social responsibility to
technological interventions) can relate to or influence our understanding of outdoor
adventure education needs further consideration. Importantly, the scope of environmental
education was only primarily examined in this thesis through the specific works of
outdoor educators more aligned in background with outdoor adventure education, yet
many other directives, research, and journals deal exclusively with the field of
environmental education in both theory and practice. Only by providing a comprehensive
overview of the potential interplay of environmental education in schools, as I have done
in this thesis for outdoor adventure education, can we then carefully understand how one
form of outdoor education can or might influence and alter the impact of the other in
public education.
Along these lines of examining other outdoor theories such as environmental
education and how it relates to this work, it can be of importance to consider the recent
ideas and concepts behind place-based education. Certainly place-based education aligns
closely to some of the theory and practice used in outdoor education in terms of the
314
contextual influence for learning, and the ideas behind place-based education have been
addressed by many researchers and writers (for some examples see Sobel, 2004;
Hutchinson, 2004; and Gruenewald, 2003). Place-based education considers not only the
personal experience of the individual but it does so in the context of community and a
sense of place that brings in wider variables for effective education including family,
culture, natural history, and how the individual values the actual sense of place (hence
countering the ‘void’ of a sterile classroom). Frequent concepts used in outdoor
education, such as notions of a physically and socially unfamiliar environment, use of
metaphor, and transference to a student’s everyday life changes the scope of how
individuals use and interact with their environment and suggests differences compared to
the scheme of place-based education in a ‘known’ sense. What would be intriguing to
explore further here is in how a familiarity with a sense of place may or may not alter the
view of how a more generalized form of outdoor education may be framed as either
curriculum or pedagogy.
In addition to this future work that is grounded in literature discussions, there are
also other avenues for further primary research to be done on this topic. First, an
extended student-based inquiry would be of benefit to examine how the youth in various
outdoor education programs view such distinctions for outdoor education as curriculum
and/or pedagogy. It would also be interesting to note if these perceptions shift any prior
to, during, and after such outdoor programs of study are undertaken. Likewise, it would
be informative to observe if there is any potential shift in attitude based on the duration of
exposure from single day activities to the longer integrated programs. That is to say,
might students possibly view one-day outdoor programs in terms of curriculum where
315
those involved in longer programs start viewing it as a process or pedagogy, or maybe
vice versa? A second area worthy of investigation would be a deeper examination of the
use of what I have identified as supplemental outdoor programming in schools. In
particular, as I noted in the previous section, the potential that supplemental outdoor
programs might lack significant curriculum connectivity (through the commitment of the
classroom teacher) and also lack the duration needed for transformative moments as a
pedagogy, might the use of supplemental outdoor programs actually become a detriment
to the rise of outdoor education in public schools? Essentially this brings into question
whether or not the nature of the interaction between outdoor education and schools not
only pertains to its use as either curriculum or pedagogy but that also the effectiveness of
such use is of critical important for its continuation.
By considering where possible future research may direct this work and that it
provides even greater understanding of how outdoor education can operate in the public
school system, this only helps to reinforce the importance this dissertation has to this
overall discussion. By clearly defining outdoor education in schools as having the ability
to operate as either curriculum and/or pedagogy, how this can be incorporated into
teacher training programs, and through the use of integrated schools programs, outdoor
education has the ability to reach its potential to act as praxis (reflection and action upon
the world in order to transform it) for our schools and the learning potential of our
students.
316
Reference List
Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Association for Experiential Education (AEE) (1994). AEE definition of experiential
education. Boulder, CO: Association for Experiential Education.
Bachert, D. (1990) “Historical Evolution of NOLS: The National Outdoor Leadership
School” in Adventure Education. (edited by Miles, J., Priest, S.) State College,
PA: Venture Publishing.
Bacon, S. (1983) The Conscious Use of Metaphor in Outward Bound. Denver, CO: The
Type-Smith of Colorado.
Baldwin, C., Persing, J., Magnuson, D. (2004) The Role of Theory, Research, and
Evaluation in Adventure Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(3),
167-183.
Barrett, M. (2002) Interdisciplinary Studies Curriculum Update. Pathways: Ontario
Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(4), 5.
Beames, S. (2006) Losing my Religion: The Quest for Applicable Theory in Outdoor
Education. Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 19(1), 4-11.
Beames, S. (2004) Overseas youth expeditions with Raleigh International: A rite of
passage? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 8(1), 29-36.
Beames, S., Atencio, M, Ross, H. (2009) Taking Excellence Outdoors. Scottish
Educational Review, 41(2), 32-45.
317
Bell, B. (2003) The Rites of Passage and Outdoor Education: Critical Concerns for
Effective Programming. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 41-50.
Bernauer, J. (1988) “Michel Foucault’s Ecstatic Thinking” in The Final Foucault. (edited
by Bernauer, J., Rasmussen, D.) Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Bernauer, J., Keenan, T. (1988) “The Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984” in The Final
Foucault. (edited by Bernauer, J., Rasmussen, D.) Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bucknell, C., Mannion, A. (2006) An outdoor education body of knowledge. Australian
Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(1), 39-45.
Burton, J. (2009) “ESP – Environmental Studies Program”. www.esp.bwdsb.on.ca (Aug,
2009), Bluewater District School Board, Flesherton, Ontario.
Chapman, S., McPhee, P., Proudman, B. (1992) What is Experiential Education? Journal
of Experiential Education, 15(2), 16-23.
Cloutier, R. (2005) Outdoor Education Risk Management. Presentation to Halifax
Regional School Board, fall 2005.
Cockrell, D. (1990) “Outdoor Leadership Certification” in Adventure Education. (edited
by Miles, J., Priest, S.) State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
COEO (2003) “Integrated Outdoor/Environmental Education Programs”.
www.coeo.org/integrat_progm.htm (Aug, 2009), Council of Outdoor Educators
of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario.
Coleman, J. (1995) “Experiential Learning and Information Assimilation: Toward an
Appropriate Mix” in The Theory of Experiential Education, 3rd ed. (edited by
Warren, K., Sakofs, M., Hunt, J.) Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
318
Comenius, J.A. (1657) The Great Didactic. Translation by Keatinge, M.W. (1910). New
York: Russell & Russell, reprinted 1967.
Comishin, K., Dyment, J., Potter, T., Russell, C. (2004) The Development and
Implementation of Outdoor-Based Secondary School Integrated Programs.
Applied Environmental Education and Communications, 3, 47-53.
Comishin, K., Potter, T. (2000) Four Public Secondary Schools that Offer Integrated
Curriculum Outdoor Education Programs. Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor
Education, 12(5), 26-29.
Cooper, G. (1996) The role of outdoor education in education for the 21st Century.
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 1(3), 10-14.
Crawley, N. (2003) Ontario Integrated Program Inventory. www.coeo.org (Aug, 2009),
The Council of Outdoor Educators of Ontario (COEO), Toronto, Ontario.
Crosby, A. (1981) A Critical Look: The Philosophical Foundations of Experiential
Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(1), 9-15.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975) Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jersey-
Boss.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1990) “Adventure and the Flow Experience”
in Adventure Education. (edited by Miles, J., Priest, S.) State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience & Education (60th anniversary edition, 1998). West
Lafayette, Indiana: Kappa Delta Pi.
Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Education. New York: The Free Press, reprinted 1997.
319
Doherty, K. (1995) A quantitative analysis of three teaching styles. Journal of
Experiential Education, 18(1), 12-19.
Drake, S. (2002) The International Reemergence of Integrated Curriculum: Can
Environmental Educators Lead the Way? Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor
Education, 14(4), 20.
Egan, K. (2002) Getting it Wrong From the Beginning. New Haven & London: Yale
University Press.
Ewert, A., Sibthorp, J. (2009) Creating Outcomes Through Experiential Education: The
Challenge of Confounding Variables. Journal of Experiential Education, 31(3),
376-389.
Foucault, M. (1988) “The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom” (interview)
in The Final Foucault. (edited by Bernauer, J., Rasmussen, D.) Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1975) Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translation by
Sheridan, A. (1977). New York: Vintage Books, reprinted 1995.
Freire, P. (1992) Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Continuum International, reprinted 2004.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum International,
reprinted 2000 (30th anniversary issue).
Gad, K., Dalziel J., Elrick, M. (2009) “CELP – Community Environmental Leadership
Programs”. www.celp.info (Aug, 2009), Centennial Collegiate Vocational
Institute, Guelph, Ontario.
Garvey, D. (1999a) “The Ultimate Goal of Adventure Education Should Be the
Improvement of the Individual, Not the Group Within Which the Individual
320
Resides – No” in Controversial Issues in Adventure Education. (edited by
Wurdinger, S., Potter, T.) Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Garvey, D. (1999b) “Do One Day Adventure Programming Activities, Such as Challenge
Courses, Provide Long Lasting Learning? – Yes” in Controversial Issues in
Adventure Education. (edited by Wurdinger, S., Potter, T.) Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt.
Garvey, D. (1995) “A History of AEE” in The Theory of Experiential Education, 3rd ed.
(edited by Warren, K., Sakofs, M., Hunt, J.) Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Gass, M. (1995) “The Effects of a Wilderness Orientation Program on College Students”
in The Theory of Experiential Education, 3rd ed. (edited by Warren, K., Sakofs,
M., Hunt, J.) Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Gass, M. (1987) The Effects of a Wilderness Orientation Program on College Students.
Journal of Experiential Education, 10(1), 30-33.
Gass, M. (1985) Programming the Transfer of Learning in Adventure Education. Journal
of Experiential Education, 8(3), 18-24.
Gass, M., Wurdinger, S. (1993) Ethical Decisions in Experience-Based Training and
Development Programs. Journal of Experiential Education, 16(2), 41-47.
Glen, J. (1988) Highlander. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.
Gough, A. (2007) Outdoor and Environmental Studies: More challenges to its place in
the curriculum. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 11(2), 19-28.
Gruenewald, D. (2003) The best of both worlds: a critical pedagogy of place.
Educational Researcher, 32(40), 3-12.
321
Gunn, T. (2006) Some outdoor educators' experiences of outdoor education. Australian
Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(1), 29-37.
Hahn, K. (1947) Training For and Through the Sea. Address given to the Honourable
Mariners’ Company in Glasgow on February 20th, 1947.
Hatch, K., McCarthy, C. (2005) Exploration of Challenge Courses’ Long-Term Effects on
Members of College Student Organizations. Journal of Experiential Education,
27(3), 245-264.
Heath, D. (1978) Teaching for Adult Effectiveness. Journal of Experiential Education,
1(3), 8-13.
Henderson, R. (2002) A Student Teacher’s Perspective on Integrated Programs.
Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(4), 16.
Higgins, P. (2008) Why indoors? The role of outdoor learning in sustainability, health
and citizenship. Inaugural chair lecture (Outdoor and Environmental Education) at
the University of Edinburgh, October 18, 2008.
Higgins, P. (2001). “Learning Outdoors: Encounters with Complexity” in Other Ways of
Learning. Marburg: European Institute for Outdoor Adventure Education and
Experiential Learning.
Higgins, P. (1997) “Why Educate Out of Doors” in A Guide for Outdoor Educators in
Scotland. (edited by Higgins, P., Loynes, C., Crowther, N.) Penrith, UK:
Adventure Education.
Higgins, P. (1995) Outdoor Education Provision at Moray House Institute of Education.
Scottish Journal of Physical Education, 23(3), 4-11.
322
Higgins, P., Loynes, C. (1997) “On the Nature of Outdoor Education” in A Guide for
Outdoor Educators in Scotland. (edited by Higgins, P., Loynes, C., Crowther, N.)
Penrith, UK: Adventure Education.
Higgins, P., Morgan, A. (1999) “Training outdoor educators: Integrating academic and
professional demands” in Outdoor Education and Experiential Learning in the
UK. (edited by Higgins, P., Humberstone, B.) Luneberg, UK: University of
Luneberg Press.
Hobson, L. (1996) Environmental Action – How do we Make it Happen. Pathways:
Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 8(4), 27-28.
Horwood, B. (2002a) The Influence of Outdoor Education on Curriculum Integration: A
Case Study. Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(4), 6-12.
Horwood, B. (2002b) The Persistence of a Good Idea. Pathways: Ontario Journal of
Outdoor Education, 14(4), 4.
Horwood, B. (1995a) “Chapter 16: Experience and the Curriculum” in Experience and
the Curriculum. (edited by Horwood, B.) Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Horwood, B. (1995b) Energy and knowledge: The story of integrated curriculum
packages. Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 7(4), 14-18.
Hovelynck, J. (1998) Facilitating experiential learning as a process of metaphor
development. Journal of Experiential Education, 21(1), 6-13.
Hunt, J. (1991) Ethics and Experiential Education as Professional Practice. Journal of
Experiential Education, 14(2), 14-18.
Hunt, J. (1990a) “Philosophy of Adventure Education” in Adventure Education. (edited
by Miles, J., Priest, S.) State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
323
Hunt, J. (1990b) Ethical Issues in Experiential Education (2nd edition). Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Hunt, J. (1981) Dewey’s Philosophical Method and Its Influence on His Philosophy of
Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(1), 29-34.
Hutchinson, D. (2004) A Natural History of Place in Education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Itin, C. (1999) Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for
change in the 21st century. Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), 91-98.
Ives, B., Obenchain, K. (2006) Experiential Education in the Classroom and Academic
Outcomes: For Those Who Want It All. Journal of Experiential Education, 29(1),
61-77.
Jacobs, D. (2003) The Myles Horton Reader: Education for Social Change. Knoxville,
Tennessee: The University of Tennessee Press.
James, T. (1995a) “Sketch of a Moving Spirit: Kurt Hahn” in The Theory of Experiential
Education, 3rd ed. (edited by Warren, K., Sakofs, M., Hunt, J.) Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt.
James, T. (1995b) “Kurt Hahn and the Aims of Education” in The Theory of Experiential
Education, 3rd ed. (edited by Warren, K., Sakofs, M., Hunt, J.) Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt.
James, W. (1910) “The Moral Equivalent to War” in William James: The Essential
Writings. Edited by Wilshire, B. (1971). New York: Harper & Row Publisher.
324
Joplin, L. (1995) “On Defining Experiential Education” in The Theory of Experiential
Education, 3rd ed. (edited by Warren, K., Sakofs, M., Hunt, J.) Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt.
Jupp, J. (1995) An Integrated Programme from the Students’ Perspective: The Bronte
Creek Project. Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 7(4), 19-23.
Kendall, S., Murfield, J., Dillon, J., Wilkin, A. (2006) Education Outside the Classroom:
Research to Identify What Training is Offered by Initial Teacher Training
Institutions. Nottingham, UK: DFES Publications (research report RR802).
Kerr, P.J., Gass, M. (1987) A Group Development Model for Adventure Education.
Journal of Experiential Education, 10(3), 39-46.
Knapp, C. (1994) Progressivism never died – it just moved outside: What can
experiential educators learn from the past? Journal of Experiential Education,
17(2), 8-12.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hill.
Kraft, R. (1990) “Experiential Learning” in Adventure Education. (edited by Miles, J.,
Priest, S.) State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
LeCompte, M., Millroy, W., Preissle, J. (1992) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in
Education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Leroy, E. (1983) Adventure and Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 6(1), 18-
22.
325
Lieberman, G., Hoody, L. (1998) Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment
as an Integrating Context for Learning. San Diego, CA: State Education and
Environment Roundtable.
Lindsay, A., Ewert, A. (1999) Learning at the edge: Can experiential education
contribute to educational reform? Journal of Experiential Education, 22(1), 12-
19.
Locke, J. (1693) Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Edited by Grant, R.W., Tarcov,
N. (1996). Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing.
Loynes, C. (1997) “Developing an Outdoor Education Programme” in A Guide for
Outdoor Educators in Scotland. (edited by Higgins, P., Loynes, C., Crowther, N.)
Penrith, UK: Adventure Education.
Loynes, C., Higgins, P. (1997) “Developing as a Leader” in A Guide for Outdoor
Educators in Scotland. (edited by Higgins, P., Loynes, C., Crowther, N.) Penrith,
UK: Adventure Education.
Loynes, C., Michie, D., Smith, C. (1997) “Justifying Outdoor Education in the Formal
and Informal Curriculum” in A Guide for Outdoor Educators in Scotland. (edited
by Higgins, P., Loynes, C., Crowther, N.) Penrith, UK: Adventure Education.
Lugg, A. (1999) Directions in Outdoor Education Curriculum. Australian Journal of
Outdoor Education, 4(1), 25-32.
Lugg, A., Martin, P. (2001) The Nature and Scope of Outdoor Education in Victorian
Schools. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(2), 42-48.
Lupton, F. (1990) “WEA History” in Adventure Education. (edited by Miles, J., Priest,
S.) State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
326
Macedo, D. (1994) Literacies of Power: What Americans are not Allowed to Know.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
McIntyre, A. (1984) After Virtue, 2nd edition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press.
McIntyre, H. (2004) English in the Wilderness: An Integrated Outward Bound Academic
Course. Pathways: Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 16(4), 12-14.
McKenzie, M. (2003) Beyond “The Outward Bound Process:” Rethinking Student
Learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 8-23.
McKiernan, R. (1995) “The Influence of Expeditionary Learning in Outward Bound and
College” in Experience and the Curriculum. (edited by Horwood, B.) Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Miner, J. (1990) “The Creation of Outward Bound” in Adventure Education. (edited by
Miles, J., Priest, S.) State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Miner, T. (1993) Building Internal Support for Experiential Programs. Journal of
Experiential Education, 16(2), 21-27.
Nadler, R., Luckner, J. (1992) Processing the Adventure Experience: Theory and
Practice. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Neill, J., Richards, G. (1998) Does Outdoor Education Really Work? A Summary of
Recent Meta-Analyses. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 3(1), 2-9.
Nicol, R., Higgins, P., Ross, H. (2006) Outdoor Education: The Views of Providers from
Different Contexts in Scotland. Dundee: Learning and Teaching Scotland, report.
Nicol, R., Higgins, P., Ross, H. and Mannion, G. (2007). Outdoor education in Scotland:
a summary of recent research. Perth: SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage).
327
Notenboom, R. (2009) “TREK School”. Sheldon-Williams Collegiate, Regina,
Saskatchewan.
OLSAG (2010) “The Curriculum for Excellence through Outdoor Learning”.
www.ltscotland.org.uk/outdoorlearning/curriculumforexcellence/index.asp (May,
2010), the Outdoor Learning Strategic Advisory Group, Scottish Government.
Paisley, K., Furman, N., Sibthorp, J., Gookin, J. (2008) Student Learning in Outdoor
Education: A Case Study from the National Outdoor Leadership School. Journal
of Experiential Education, 30(3), 201-222.
Passmore, J. (1980) “The Concept of Teaching” in The Philosophy of Teaching.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Patterson, B. (1995) The TAMARACK Program. Green Teacher, 42, 25-28.
Piaget, J. (1964) “Development and Learning” in Piaget Rediscovered (edited by Ripple,
R. Rockcastle, V.) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Plaut, L. (2001) Degree-granting Programs in Adventure Education: Added Value?
Journal of Experiential Education, 24(3), 136-140.
Polley, S., Pickett, B. (2003) The nature and scope of outdoor education in South
Australia: a summary of key findings. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education,
7(2), 11-18.
Pomeroy, G., Gillis, B. (2009) “Northern Outdoor Studies Program”.
www.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/services/cst/secondary/nos (Aug, 2009), Hastings and
Prince Edward District School Board, Belleville, Ontario.
Priest, S. (2000) Blueprint for Qualification, Certification and Accreditation in Oz and
NZ. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), 65-67.
328
Priest, S. (1990) “The Semantics of Adventure Education” in Adventure Education.
(edited by Miles, J., Priest, S.) State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Priest, S., Baillie, R. (1995) “Justifying the Risk to Others: The Real Razor’s Edge” in
The Theory of Experiential Education, 3rd ed. (edited by Warren, K., Sakofs, M.,
Hunt, J.) Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Priest, S., Gass, M. (2005) Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming, 2nd edition.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.
Prochazka, L. (1995) “Internalizing Learning: Beyond Experiential Education” in The
Theory of Experiential Education, 3rd ed. (edited by Warren, K., Sakofs, M.,
Hunt, J.) Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Prouty, D. (1990) “Project Adventure: A Brief History” in Adventure Education. (edited
by Miles, J., Priest, S.) State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Puk, T. (1999a) “Do One Day Adventure Programming Activities, Such as Challenge
Courses, Provide Long Lasting Learning? – No” in Controversial Issues in
Adventure Education. (edited by Wurdinger, S., Potter, T.) Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt.
Puk, T. (1999b) “Is the Process of Experiential Learning (Outside the Classroom)
Practical in Higher Education Settings? – Yes” in Controversial Issues in
Adventure Education. (edited by Wurdinger, S., Potter, T.) Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt.
Quay, J. (2003) Experience and Participation: Relating Theories of Learning. Journal of
Experiential Education, 26(2), 105-116.
329
Racevskis, K. (1988) “Michel Foucault, Rameau’s Nephew, and the Question of Identity”
in The Final Foucault. (edited by Bernauer, J., Rasmussen, D.) Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Raffan, J. (1995) Experiential education and teacher education. Journal of Experiential
Education, 18(3), 117-119.
Reid, B., Reid, M. (2009) “Earth Quest”. www.earthquest.ca (Aug, 2009), Vernon
Secondary School, Vernon, British Columbia.
Richards, A. (1990) “Kurt Hahn” in Adventure Education. (edited by Miles, J., Priest, S.)
State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Rousseau, J.J. (1762) Emile. Translation by Bloom, A. (1979). New York: Basic Books.
Russell, C., Burton, J. (2000) A Report on an Ontario Secondary School Integrated
Environmental Studies Program. Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 287-
304.
Sakofs, M., Armstrong, G., Proudman, S., Howard, J., Clark, T. (1995) Developing a
teacher development model: A work in progress. Journal of Experiential
Education, 18(3), 128-132.
Schön, D. (1991) The Reflective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Shor, I. (1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
330
Shor, I., Freire, P. (1987) A Pedagogy for Liberation. Massachusetts: Bergin & Gravey.
Sobel, D. (2004) Place-based Education Connecting Classrooms and Communities.
Great Barrington: The Orion Society.
Sugerman, D. (1999) “The Ultimate Goal of Adventure Education Should Be the
Improvement of the Individual, Not the Group Within Which the Individual
Resides – Yes” in Controversial Issues in Adventure Education. (edited by
Wurdinger, S., Potter, T.) Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Thompson, S., Loeffler, S. (2009) “EcoQuest”. www.ecoquest.ca (Aug, 2009), Buena
Vista School, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Tuckman, B., Jensen, M. (1977) Stages of small group development revisited. Group &
Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Webb, M. (2003) “A definitive critique of experiential learning theory”.
cc.ysu.edu/~mnwebb/critique/Abstract_final_wtp.pdf (May, 2010), unpublished
doctoral thesis, Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of
Management, Case Western Reserve University.
Wigginton, E. (1991) Foxfire, 25 Years. New York: Doubleday.
Woollven, R., Allison, P., Higgins, P. (2007) Perception and Reception: The Introduction
of Licensing of Adventure Activities in Great Britain. Journal of Experiential
Education, 30(1), 1-20.
Wurdinger, S. (1999) “Is the Process of Experiential Learning (Outside the Classroom)
Practical in Higher Education Settings? – No” in Controversial Issues in
Adventure Education. (edited by Wurdinger, S., Potter, T.) Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt.
331
Wurdinger, S. (1990) Are We Off Balance? Journal of Experiential Education, 13(1), 44-
46.
Zink, R., Boyes, M. (2006) The nature and scope of outdoor education in New Zealand
schools. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(1), 11-21.
332
Appendices
Appendix A: Research Participant Requests
1) Research Ad posted in the November 2008 electronic newsletter of the Council of
Outdoor Educators of Ontario (COEO):
What Makes a Good Outdoor Educator?
Survey Request How can the current teaching profession prepare new teachers seeking to become effective outdoor and experiential educators? Would this involve formal training? If so, by whom; school boards, a university upgrade program, industry? What skills, aptitudes and background theory would be necessary? Should there be an intern or mentorship process and, if so, what would this look like? Current doctoral research is investigating the need for training new teachers in outdoor education in order to further its development in Canadian public schools. As such, the knowledge and experiences of veteran outdoor educations in schools is sought in order to establish the requirements for this growing educational field. If you would like to participate in this research project, please respond to this survey request. The survey will consist of two parts and will require as much time as you wish to contribute. The first part allows you to identify the critical issues and concepts that you feel should be included in any formal new teacher training process. A short follow-up survey will consist of a rating scheme that will allow you to give feedback on the issues collected from the first survey to identify key ideas of veteran outdoor educators. If you would like to have your voice heard on this issue please contact Michael Bowdridge, a Nova Scotia high school teacher and doctoral candidate, at [email protected].
2) Individual e-mail solicitation of identified Canadian teachers operating integrated
outdoor education programs in public schools:
Good afternoon __________________, My name is Mike Bowdridge and I am a high school classroom teacher in Nova Scotia. Currently I am also working on my doctoral thesis in the area of outdoor education and would be very interested to speak with you about your experiences in this field and about your program, _______________. I am investigating the ways in which the current teaching profession could better prepare new teachers seeking to become effective outdoor and experiential educators. As such, I am seeking to include the knowledge and experiences of veteran outdoor educators such as yourself to add a grounded basis for my
333
research and to give a “voice” to current outdoor educators in this dialogue. I am particularly interested in integrated programs, where the teachers need a solid foundation in current school curriculum and courses that are then blended with outdoor education by utilizing a thematic approach. In the most basic terms, I am seeking experienced feedback on where Canadian outdoor educators think we should be going in terms of new-teacher training in this field, and I would like to know your thoughts on this. If you would like to participate in this research project, please respond to this e-mail and I will send you a teacher survey as a start point. The survey will require as much, or as little, time as you are able to contribute. This survey will allow you to identify the critical issues and concepts that you feel should be included in any formal new teacher training process. Your time, and voice, would be really appreciated and I hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Mike Bowdridge Halifax West High School Halifax, NS PhD candidate (Simon Fraser University, BC)
334
Appendix B: Research Informed Consent Waiver
Informed Consent by Participants in a Research Study
The University and those conducting this research study subscribe to the ethical conduct of research and to the protection at all times of the interests, comfort, and safety of participants. This research is being conducted under permission of the Simon Fraser Research Ethics Board. The chief concern of the Board is for the health, safety and psychological well-being of research participants. Should you wish to obtain information about your rights as a participant in research, or about the responsibilities of researchers, or if you have any questions, concerns or complaints about the manner in which you were treated in this study, please contact the Director, Office of Research Ethics by email at [email protected] or phone at 778-782-6593. Your signature on this form will signify that you have received a document which describes the procedures, whether there are possible risks, and benefits of this research study, that you have received an adequate opportunity to consider the information in the documents describing the study, and that you voluntarily agree to participate in the study.
Title: Investigating Integrated Outdoor Education Programs
Investigator Name: Mike Bowdridge
Investigator Department: Faculty of Education
This study is designed to investigate key criteria or goals that should be considered when developing a new teacher training program in outdoor education. The survey of veteran outdoor educators would allow for the experienced voice of the profession be heard in order to address the needs for new training in this area in order to promote its continued growth.
You would be required to complete two survey forms. Form 1 will allow you to express your beliefs of issues and elements that should be taken into account when training new teachers in the field of outdoor education. This may include your understanding for the needs of practice, safety, implementation, or theory in the area of outdoor education. Form 2 will be generated from all the input of the first survey, and allow each individual to rank all the issues or elements as described by all other individuals. This two stage method allows all the participants, who are the experts in this field, to express their own views that are not shaped by pre-defined survey questions, but then allows each feedback to ensure that points brought up are considered important to the field as a whole and not an isolated view. Follow-up questions may be used only to help clarify any view on a particular position. This study will allow new insight into the needs and requirements of successful teaching training in the field of outdoor education, something that is currently not formalized anywhere in Canada. Such an understanding of how to progress in developing such programs allows for the development of a stronger field of outdoor education within the future teaching population. No names or case studies will be individually documented without the approval of the individuals with respect to any written work pertaining to their programs or pedagogical approaches. Any and all reporting of survey feedback, when given reference to you or your program, will be confirmed with you to ensure agreement to what you submitted as survey data. It will be your choice entirely to whether or not you wish to have any of your work or program identified in this research. This study is aimed at understanding the needs of teacher education and training in the field of outdoor education, and as such does not wish to examine or include any issues of school board or provincial education procedures or mandates. This study
335
looks to examine how to better teacher training, not be a critique of any educational institution. The confidentially of all individuals participating in this study will be kept in terms of their generated ranked responses to survey forms 1 and 2. When case studies or quotes for the voices of participants are wished to be used, you, as a leader within this field, will be contacted with the exact quote and context that your voice is wished to be used in this study. You can refuse to have a quote used for the study and it would not be used. You will be given final approval of any information or case study that uses your name or identifies your program. This study will conclude in the writing of a doctoral thesis. Any other studies done in this field at a later time would not be in conjunction with this study, and any similarly would simply be a result of you being educational leaders in this field, and thus continually exposed to ongoing research in their area of expertise.
I understand that I may withdraw my participation at any time. I also understand that I may register any complaint with the Director of the Office of Research Ethics.
Dr. Hal Weinberg Director, Office of Research Ethics Office of Research Ethics Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Multi-Tenant Facility Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 [email protected] I may obtain copies of the result of this study, upon its completion by contacting: Mike Bowdridge 4 Emmanuel Dr. Dartmouth, NS B3A 4M2 (902) 463-6267 [email protected] I understand the risks and contributions of my participation in this study and agree to participate: Please print legibly Participant last name: Participant first name: Participant contact information: Participant Signature: Date:
336
Appendix C: Research Participant Survey Form
Investigating Integrated Outdoor Education Programs
Survey Form 1
Part 1 –Participant Information The personal information here is intended to establish the credibility of this survey by demonstrating the expertise of those participants involved. Name: Current position held: Official school-based teachables: Years teaching in public schools: Years of relevant outdoor education experience: Years teaching outdoor education in a school setting: Outdoor educational programs you have been involved with: Have any of these programs included integrated outdoor programming in the schools: Programs that you consider to be exemplary: What kinds of “success” do you feel you are having in your teaching? Part 2 – Contextualizing Outdoor Education This section is intended for you to frame what you consider to be some key elements of outdoor education, its methodology, and practice.
1) How to you define outdoor education?
2) What is the role of the outdoors in education?
3) What do you feel outdoor education provides to its participants?
4) What key elements or practices do you feel is important in outdoor education? Part 3 – Criteria for New-Teacher Training in Outdoor Education Programming This section is intended for you to provide feedback on issues and training that you feel is important for consideration in training new teachers in the area of outdoor education implementation for school-based programs.
1) What do you feel are important areas or topics that a good outdoor education program should expose students to?
2) What current areas or topics in public schooling are best included in an outdoor education curriculum?
337
3) What topics or issues do you feel are required to be taught to new teachers who wish to teach outdoor
education in a public school setting? a) in educational methodology and public school curriculum implementation
b) in outdoor programming
c) in technical skill training (often called “hard-skills” in outdoor education)
d) personal and group development (often called “soft-skills” in outdoor education) e) philosophical foundations and/or historical traditions
4) Who should be responsible for this training, and why? (for example, school board initiatives, university upgrade programs, outdoor adventure industry, etc.)
5) Does the training of a public school teacher in outdoor education need to differ from the training currently provided to educators in other areas of outdoor education (such as private adventure programs, guiding, or recreational summer camps), and if so, then how?
6) Consider your own background and training. a) Where/how did you gain expertise in outdoor education? b) Looking back, what elements do you think should have been added? c) If you could go back and re-take your formal training, is there anything you would like to see done differently?
7) a) Should new-teacher training involve some form of mentorship with existing teaching professionals? b) If so, what is a good balance between classroom/scenario based theory training and some form of practicum placement experience? c) Are these the only two choices for teacher training, or are there other key elements that should be included?
8) What other ways do you see an outdoor teacher-training program being able to link with and draw from existing outdoor practitioners operating current programs in the school system?
9) In what ways could an outdoor teaching-training program contribute to the existing programs in schools?
10) When should this teacher-training in outdoor education take place in a teacher’s career? (for example, as an elective part of a B.Ed. program prior to any classroom teaching, or as a certification upgrade program once one is an established classroom teacher, etc.)
11) What benefits to do you perceive could or should result from a formal teacher training process that could enhance the preparation of new teachers to the field of outdoor education?
12) a) Do you feel there are any drawbacks to teacher-training in this field, and if so, what are the particular concerns you have to such an approach? b) Do you see any generic drawbacks of outdoor education in the schools in general?
13) What organizations should have a voice in the operation and/or accreditation/standards of any outdoor education teacher-training program? (for example, should the outdoor adventure industry provide an
338
advisory role, a certification partnership, or no interaction with any school board or university-run program?)
14) a) In places like Scotland and Australia, outdoor education is sanctioned by the government as a “teachable”. What are your thoughts, concerns, or support if such a direction was taken in Canada? b) Is there a need to create or push for the idea that outdoor education in schools should be a recognized teaching specialty?
15) How do you feel about idea of outdoor education becoming a curriculum specialty, as suggested in the previous question, generating “mandatory” outdoor education training for new teacher-candidates? What might be the benefits or drawbacks of such an approach?
16) Are there any other key issues that you feel would be important for teacher-training in outdoor education that has not been discussed in the above questions?
339